Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cannock Urban District Council Bill,

To be read a second time To-morrow.

Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North Western Railway Companies Bill [by Order],

Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Pensions Funds (Cardiff) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders Bill,

Read a second time, and committed.

Ammanford Gas Bill,

"To authorise the acquisition by the Ammanford Gas Company of the undertaking of the Garnant Gas Company; to confer further powers on the Ammanford Gas Company; and for other purposes," presented, and read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHAN TOWNS (BOMBING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India if day and night aeroplane bombing raids have been carried out against Jellalabad and other Afghan towns; if so, what steps are taken to avoid the killing of women and children in these raids; and will he publish assurances on this subject for the information of the Moslem subjects of the Empire and of our Allies?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any and, if so, what instructions have been given as to the bombing of Afghan towns and villages with a view to prevent injury to non-combatants?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): As far as is known, aeroplane bombing raids on Afghan towns have been solely by day. I have ascertained from the Viceroy that all possible care is taken to confine operations to attacks on troops and military objectives and to avoid villages and other unfortified places. British military practice in this respect is sufficiently known to make a public announcement on the subject unnecessary.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are any instructions given as to the height from which bombs are to be dropped in the day time?

Mr. MONTAGU: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many pre-war pensioners served during the present War; how many pre-war pensioners did not serve during the War; how many pre-war pensioners will receive no increase in their pension; how many pensioners are above the age of fifty-five; and what would be the cost of granting the revised scale of pensions to all pensioners now on the rolls?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Approximately 11,000 pre-war long service pensioners have served during the War; 19,500 have not served. Some of these latter, however, will, being under fifty-five when war broke out, get the increased basic rate under Decision No. 51, page 8, Command Paper 149. Of the total number of long-service pensioners now on the roll, namely, about 34,000, about 14,800 are ineligible under the decision in reference for the improved basic rate. As I stated in a reply on the 2nd June, the approximate cost of extending the new pension concessions to these men is estimated at £536,900 for the first year. In subsequent
years the amount would be reduced by the wastage arising from death, and, of course, ultimately disappear.

SS. "PEGASUS."

Commander BELLAIRS: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any court-martial was ever held to investigate the destruction of the "Pegasus," at anchor at Zanzibar, by the "Konigsberg," at a range beyond the range of the guns of the "Pegasus"; whether any officer in command on the station asked for a court- martial; and, if refused, why was it refused?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Long): No court-martial was held into the loss of the "Pegasus" on the 20th September, 1914. The commanding officer asked in July, 1915, for a Court of Inquiry or court-martial; but the Admiralty decided that as war operations and difficulties in this theatre of war had prevented an inquiry at the time, it was then too late to hold a court-martial or Court of Inquiry.

Commander BELLA1RS: Why is it too late, seeing that on many occasions courts-martial have been held, seven, eight and nine years after the event?

Mr. LONG: I do not think that there have been any recent cases of that kind. That was the opinion of the Board of Admiralty in 1915, and the present Board see no reason to differ from it.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not hard lines on an officer when he is reflected on in this way, involving a censure, that he cannot get a court-martial?

Sir B. FALLE: Is there any reason for the suggestion that an inquiry would affect the conduct of a member of the last Government?

Mr. LONG: There is not the smallest foundation for any insinuation of that kind.

DARDANELLES (DISPATCHES).

Commander BELLAIRS: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the cause of the delay in the promised publication of the dispatches in regard to the bombardment of the Dardanelles forts in1915, and whether they will include the telegram from the admiral commanding
which the First Lord of the Admiralty described as submitting a plan which he approved of by telegram?

Mr. LONG: The dispatches in regard to the bombardment of the Dardanelles Forts in l915 were published in the "London Gazette" of 2nd May, to which I beg to refer my hon. and gallant Friend. The term "dispatches" does not, of course, cover telegrams such as those referred to. It has not been the practice to publish more than the dispatches; and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by departing from custom in the present instance. The matter has been dealt with by the Dardanelles Commission.

ADMIRAL CRADOCK (MEMORANDUM).

Commander BELLAIRS: 6.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a. Memorandum was received by the Board of Admiralty from Admiral Cradock in regard to his instructions and force prior to the battle of Coronel; and, in view of the charges which have been made against his memory, whether the Board will publish this Memorandum?

Mr. LONG: No such Memorandum was received by the Board of Admiralty from Admiral Cradock. As regards my hon. and gallant Friend's reference to charges made against this most gallant officer's memory, I confess I have no knowledge of them, neither can I imagine that any person whose opinion was worth a moment's-consideration would think of doing other than speak in most grateful terms of the memory of a man whose reputation amongst the officers and men of the great Service to which he belonged, and indeed amongst his fellow countrymen as a whole, is one which any public servant might well envy.

Commander BELLAIRS: Was any protest received from Admiral Cradock in regard to the mission on which he was sent and the strength of the forces under his command?

Mr. LONG: I have seen all the communications and I do not think that the late Admiral Cradock did more than point out what were certain obvious difficulties, but there is nothing in the nature of what is suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

PATROL SQUADRON SUNK (COURT-MARTIAL)

Commander BELLAIRS: 7.
asked whether any court-martial was held to inquire
into the circumstances under which a single submarine sunk the patrol squadron consisting of the "Cressy," "Hogue," and "Aboukir"; whether the three ships were stationed by order of the Board of Admiralty as a whole or by the orders of particular individuals; and, if so, who was made responsible for the great loss of life needlessly entailed?

Mr. LONG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The orders under which these ships were stationed were part of the war dispositions approved and issued by the naval authorities at that time responsible.

Commander BELLAIRS: Was there a Court of Inquiry held?

Mr. LONG: I think there was, but I am not quite sure. The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will my right hon. Friend, in that particular case, give the findings of the Court of Inquiry, in view of the fact that the Court of Inquiry I understand blamed the Admiralty?

Mr. LONG: I cannot say that that is involved in the question. If the hon. and gallant Member wants information, he must put a question on the Paper.

Viscount CURZON: Were these ships operating under the orders of the Admiralty or of the. Commander-in-chief of the Grand Fleet?

Mr. LONG: I should say certainly the Admiralty, though obviously that is not a matter that should be put in a supplementary question.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—who was made responsible for the great loss of life entailed?

Mr. LONG: I think that the answer is obvious. The Admiralty of the day issued the orders, and if casualties occurred they profoundly regretted them, but I do not think it fair to suggest that they should be brough to book about all that.

CADETSHIPS (OSBORNE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 9.
asked what particulars concerning candidates are furnished to the Interview Committee selecting boys for Osborne cadetships?

Mr. LONG: The following particulars are furnished to the Interview Committee:

Medical particulars, which are furnished by the parent or guardian, and countersigned by the Boy's medical attendant.

Confidential Report from the boy's schoolmaster.

FOREIGN SERVICE COMMISSION.

Viscount CURZON: 11.
asked what are the intentions of the Admiralty with regard to the length of foreign service commissions; and whether it is intended to grant any leave prior to departure for foreign service?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With regard to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, it was definitely decided before the War that three-year commissions on foreign service should be reverted to. I understand that there is no intention of changing this policy now.
With regard to the second part of the question, ten days' leave is usually given, when practicable, prior to departure for foreign service.

PETTY OFFICERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that there is disappointment among the petty officers of the Royal Navy because petty officers' time over eight years is not to count as chief petty officers' time for pension in spite of the recommendations of the Jerram Committee that it should so count; whether their Lordships will reconsider this decision; and what would be the estimated annual cost of this concession?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am aware of the disappointment to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The granting permission to petty officers to count time over eight years as if it were served in the rank of chief petty officer was a temporary measure, because owing to war circumstances, the men were not able to become chief petty officers at a reasonably early standing. The scale of pay and pension of chief petty officer and petty officer ratings has been improved so substantially that there is now no justification for the continuance of the temporary measure by which a petty officer was allowed to count time towards increase of pay and pension
as if he were serving in a higher rating than that in fact held by him. These things being so, after careful consideration, the Board came to the conclusion that recommendation No. 36 of the Jerram proposals could not be approved. As regards the last part of the question, the annual cost is estimated at £1,600 for the first year, rising eventually to £45,000 a year.

PAY AND PENSIONS.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is disappointment amongst the junior ratings of the Navy at the smallness of the increases of their pay under the Jerram Report; that there is also disappointment that all the naval pensioners have not been included in the increases as well as the absence of pensions being granted to widows and children on the same basis as that given to commissioned officers; that the date of the retrospective payment of the pay is not made earlier; that in some cases accelerated promotion is desired, and other matters; and whether, under these circumstances, ho will endeavour to arrange with the Leader of the House to name an early date after the Whitsun vacation when the Report can be fully debated?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have, of course, followed, as my hon. Friend has done, the various expressions of view arising out of Admiral Jerram's inquiry; and hon. Members, particularly those interested in Navy affairs, no doubt desire discussion on Command Paper 149. The appropriate occasion is, obviously, the Debate on the Navy Estimates. We shall take these as soon as possible after the Whitsun recess, probably early in July.

Viscount CURZON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the decision of the Admiralty upon Navy pay, allowances, and pensions apply to the Royal Naval Division?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The matter is now under consideration and it is anticipated that an early decision will be arrived at.

APPLICATIONS FOR DEMOBILISATION.

Sir H. COWAN: 22.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that William Buchan, No. 16484, D.A., mate, His Majesty's Troopship "Pavlova," naval base, Brightlingsea, who joined up in Feb-
ruary, 1916, and has been on continuous service since then, and who has provided a substitute and applied for demobilisation, has been refused; and whether, in view of the fact that the ''Pavlova" is reconditioning and that Buchan is only kept on to stand by her, he will state the reason for such refusal?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Second hand William Buchan was not enrolled until 12th June, 1917. He is at present serving in one of the two navigating crews retained at Brightlingsea to navigate vessels reconditioning or laid up there with care and maintenance parties aboard, to their port of return to owners or reconditioning port, and not solely to stand by "Pavlova." There are still many men of 1914 and 1915 enrolment who have prior claim to release.

SALVAGE OF CHARTERED VESSELS.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 25.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether their Lord ships will take into consideration the fact that the services in respect of the salvage of government chartered vessels were on the same lines and subject to the same dangers as those rendered in respect of privately owned ships, and grant to the dockyard salvage party a gratuity in respect of the vessels salved?

Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty have not overlooked the consideration mentioned in my hon. Friend's question. But the matter is one of difficulty, involving as it does this question of principle: Are the crews of Government vessels entitled to salvage awards for salving other Government vessels? The determination of the answer to this question is still a matter of discussion, and, though I can give my hon. Friend no undertaking that the policy of the past will be modified in the future, perhaps he would put a question down again after the Recess.

Sir T. BRAMSDON: Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to me when the question can be put down?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes.

ACCELERATED PROMOTION (JERRAM REPORT).

Sir T. BRAMSDON: 26.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that the Jerram Report, as published, contains no mention of accelerated promotion for the sick-berth staff and that, under the pre-
sent system, practically 100 per cent. of the ratings cannot obtain a first triennial increment of a chief sick-berth steward, as it takes seven years for a sick-berth attendant to become a second sick-berth steward, twelve and a half years for a second sick-berth steward to become a sick-berth steward, and eighteen to nineteen years for a sick-berth steward to become a chief sick-berth steward; is he aware that at the inquiry of Surgeon-Commander Falconer Hall, Royal Navy, which was conducted thirteen months ago, a question of automatic promotion was raised, but no Report has been published in connection therewith; and will he, under these circumstances, state definitely what steps are being taken to combat this disability?

Dr. MACNAMARA: With the hon. Member's permission, I propose to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the Answer referred to:

The figures, as stated, regarding the periods of time in the different ratings are not correct. Those furnished by the drafting commanders to Surgeon-Commander J. Falconer Hall are as follows:



Chatham.
Devonport.
Portsmouth.



Yrs.
Mths.
Yrs.
Mths.
Yrs.
Mths


Sink Berth Attendant to 2nd Sick Berth Steward
3
9
5
3
4
6


2nd Sick Berth Steward to Sick Berth Steward
4
5
5
0
5
4


Sick Berth Steward to Chief Sick Berth Steward
8
9
6
1
7
3



17
0
16
4
17
1

Steps are being taken to increase the number and appointments of chief sick-berth stewards, and this "will naturally decrease the period that men have to wait in the lower ranks.

The question of automatic promotion was considered by the Jerram Committee, but was not approved of by them. There have been many points raised in Surgeon-Commander J. Falconer Hall's Report, each of which required special consideration. The question of accelerated promotion is under consideration at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRINCE OF WALES.

AUTUMN TOUR.

Viscount CURZON: 10.
asked the first Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the naval arrangements in connection with the forthcoming visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Canada?

Mr. LONG: No, Sir.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is in contemplation that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales should pay a visit to the United States subsequent to his tour in Canada this autumn?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): I have no information on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE CELEBRATIONS.

NAVAL MARCH THROUGH LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to whether any procession has been arranged for of officers and men of the Royal Navy in London as part of the forthcoming Peace celebrations?

Mr. LONG: It is intended that such a march shall take place as part of the Peace celebrations. The number of officers and men who can be spared must depend upon circumstances at the time.

WARSHIPS IN THAMES.

Mr. GILBERT: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any arrangements have been made by his Department for the forthcoming Peace celebrations as to allowing an exhibition on the Thames of some of the naval ships of various classes which have taken part in the War; and if he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. LONG: It is intended that a squadron shall visit the Thames on the occasion of the Peace celebrations and that the public shall have opportunities of inspecting these ships. It is not possible to state the composition of the squadron yet.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Would it be possible to include some German prizes other than submarines, if the Peace terms permit of that course?

Mr. LONG: I will, of course, consider the suggestion, but I could not say offhand. Some of them have been on show at different places.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Other than submarines?

Mr. LONG: Other than submarines.

LIQUOR CONTROL.

Captain O'GRADY: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the appeal that the public shall take holidays earlier, and that the statutory holidays follow in quick succession, and, further, the anticipation that Peace celebrations will take place about the middle of August, in which the nation as a whole will participate, and will require and demand reasonable facilities for refreshments, can he state what steps will be taken to wind up the functions of the Liquor Control Board; and whether there will be an approximation to pre-war conditions in respect to the production and sale of exciseable refreshments in order that such facilities may be established?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I cannot add anything to previous replies on this subject.

Captain O'GRADY: Have the right hon. Gentleman and the War Cabinet taken into consideration the point of my question, that probably on the celebration of Peace there will be half the population of London in the streets, and that if these houses are closed for reasonable refreshment nothing but riot and chaos can ensue?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is possible, and I think if there is any likelihood of the facts being such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests it is a subject for consideration whether special arrangements might not be made on such an occasion.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Can he state when the Cabinet will announce its decision in regard to the removal of this control?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that it is not a simple subject to deal with. In the meantime the Board of Control are exercising their functions. It is not intended that that should be permanent, but whatever arrangements are ultimately made should be under the responsibility of some Minister who is answerable to Parliament.

Mr. R. McNEILL: Does he realise that the indefinite continuance of this control is causing increasing exasperation in this country, and can he take no steps either to give an explanation or to put an end to it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We have taken very considerable steps. We have, for instance, authorised an increased output of beer which is at least as large as can be brewed under present conditions, so there is no limitation of output, and as regards hours I do not think either the House or the country would like to see a reversion to the old system.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is he not aware that the primary incentives to all men working, including Members of the House of Commons, are hunger and thirst, and that at least by one of his Regulations he has to a large part cut off one of the primary incentives and caused great irritation to all classes of the community, and that if he continues that he will likely have to greatly increase his unemployed benefit?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. Member says, but Members of Parliament, like other human beings, have to be content very often without the full satisfaction of their desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY CHARTS.

Mr. MACKINDER: 18.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether before the War Admiralty charts were sold through the agency of private firms, such as nautical opticians; whether during the War the Admiralty supplied the greater part of the Mercantile Marine with charts on loan; whether recently the Admiralty have circularised the shipowners with a view to establishing a system of direct sales in competition with the said private firms; what proportion of the shipowners so circularised have replied favourably to the Admiralty scheme?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Admiralty charts were sold before the War, and continue to be sold, through an agent and his sub-agents, which include nautical opticians. During the War it was found essential, for various reasons, to supply charts on loan to the greater part of the Mercantile Marine. On the release of ships from Admiralty control, a strong desire was expressed by a number of shipowners and
masters to continue to have the advantage of a direct supply from the Admiralty of suitable chart sets, but on a payment basis. To ascertain the views of shipowners, a circular was sent out suggesting a scheme for doing this. This scheme was approved and adopted by 22 per cent. of the firms circularised, and is still under consideration by 54 per cent.

Mr. MACKINDER: 19.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have set up a Government agency for the sale of charts at Liverpool; whether they have announced to shipowners their intention of setting up such chart shops in other commercial ports; what advantages to the shipping community are anticipated from this competition with old-established private enterprise; and what is estimated to be the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed new system?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I propose to circulate this answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will read the concluding paragraph.

The following is the Answer referred to:

An Admiralty Chart Depot has recently been established at Liverpool, to deal with the large numbers of charts being returned from His Majesty's ships and ships of the Mercantile Marine with a view to salving as many as possible. Merchant ships are being supplied with Admiralty folios of charts through this depot. It is not the present intention to open further Admiralty Chart Depots in the United Kingdom.

The advantages of the Admiralty scheme recognised by shipowners are: They can rely upon all charts issued from a depot being correct up to date of issue for the latest navigational information available. The folios of charts issued contain the Admiralty standard for navigational purposes. The folios supplied are automatically replenished by issues of Admiralty notice to mariners, sailing directions, new editions of charts, etc. Economy in charts carried as masters can obtain supplementary folios at Admiralty Chart Depots in foreign waters. The ships' charts can be corrected on request by qualified officers in the Admiralty Chart Depots.

It is not anticipated that the Admiralty scheme will impose any additional cost on the taxpayer.

Sir W. RAEBURN: Was it not under strong protest from the shipowners that
they have had to take these charts from the Admiralty instead of from the firms who have been accustomed to supply them in years gone by?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have said that 22 per cent. of the firms approved and that 54 per cent. had it still under consideration. That still leaves, I think, 24 per cent., and I dare say that amongst them there is something in the nature of a protest, although I do not know.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Is it intended to take any steps to recompense the firms whose business has been taken away?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that without notice.

Mr. MACKINDER: Have the balance of the firms circularised replied in an adverse direction?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would like to look at it again. The fact is that 22 per cent. have approved and 54 per cent. have it still under consideration. In regard to the remainder, it must be assumed for the moment that the majority are against—that is, assuming the worst.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROSYTH NAVAL BASE

Sir HENRY COWAN: 21.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the men transferred from Peterhead Harbour works to Rosyth do not receive the transfer fee which is paid to men similarly transferred to Rosyth from southern yards; whether he can state the reason for this discrimination against men transferred from the North of Scotland; and whether he will take steps to have this inequality redressed by the payment of the transfer fee to the Peterhead men in future with arrears as from the date of their transfer?

Dr. MACNAMARA: At the time when it was necessary to obtain a large number of workmen, mainly skilled, for employment at Rosyth, certain inducements were held out to men serving in the southern dockyards in order that they might volunteer for permanent service at Rosyth; the inducements included 2s. a week advance in wages. This 2s. transfer increase was not offered to the men who were formerly serving at Peterhead; these men were given the offer of employment at Rosyth at the usual rates for local entrants when, it became necessary to dispense with their services at Peterhead.

Sir H. COWAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it fair that advantages should be given to men transferred from southern yards that are not offered to men transferred from Scotland?

Dr. MACNAMARA: What we did I think was quite equitable. We asked southern men to go a very great distance and to separate themselves from all home associations. We are offering Peterhead men the same terms as we are offering all other men from Scotland.

Sir H. COWAN: They consider it exceedingly unfair.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOST DRIFTERS (REPLACEMENT).

Sir H. COWAN: 23 and 24.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty (1) whether arrangements can be made to enable ex-Service men to acquire drifters, for cash, at prices based on cost less reasonable allowance for depreciation; (2) what arrangements have been made to enable fishermen whose drifters have been lost whilst on Admiralty service to obtain vessels in replacement of the same; and what are the terms on which such vessels are to be obtained by those entitled to benefit by the scheme?

Dr. MACNAMARA: We have set aside a number of drifters for disposal to persons actually engaged in fishing operations. Apart from that, we are engaged at the present time upon the discussion of a scheme designed so to use drifters and trawlers surplus to Admiralty requirements, if possible, in such a way as to help re-establish in their proper avocation the men who have served us during the War in the Royal Naval Reserve Trawler Section. For the rest, persons desirous of replacing drifters lost while in the Naval Service are entitled to compensation on, the basis of fixed percentage additions to the charter party value, namely, an addition of 75 per cent. in the case of wood vessels and 80 per cent. in the case of steel.

Sir H. COWAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the details of the scheme to which he refers are likely to be available?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I am sorry to say I cannot. We have not brought it so far.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the scheme enable a man who has lost his drifter to get another to replace it, or only a portion of the value?

Dr. MACNAMARA: That scheme will not enable him to replace the drifter which he has lost; but the last paragraph of the answer shows that he is entitled to compensation on the basis of fixed percentage additions to the charter party value, namely, an addition of 75 per cent. in the case of wood boats and 80 per cent. in the case of steel. That should go a long way towards compensation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why should not the Government go all the way?

Dr. MACNAMARA: Perhaps my hon. Friend will read my answer. My reply stated that we have set aside a number of drifters for disposal to persons actually engaged in fishing operations.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Have you set aside enough drifters to meet the needs of men who have suffered loss?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer that.

Mr. STURROCK: Is not the main point in this matter to supply drifters to men who cannot now go to sea, in order that they may be allowed to go to sea?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARD (DISTRIBUTIVE TRADES).

Mr. STURROCK: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the proposal to establish a trade board in London to deal with conditions affecting the Scottish distributive trades is causing dissatisfaction; and whether, in view of the many particulars in which Scottish and English customs differ, he will set up a Scottish board located in Scotland and consequently more closely in touch with Scottish trade and more easy of access to Scottish traders?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): No decision has yet been reached as to the number of trade boards to be established for the distributive trade, and the whole question is being carefully considered in consultation with representatives of the various interests affected. I fully appreciate and sympathise with the standpoint of those who desire that a separate Board should be established for
Scotland, and, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour recently informed a deputation representing important sections of the distributive trade in Scotland, this question is receiving my careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. WATERSON: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that H. Burridge, late sergeant in the Sherwood Foresters, applied to the Ilkeston Labour Exchange for employment at the Chilwell factory, where he was employed prior to enlistment, and was informed that only soldiers in uniform, drawing His Majesty's pay, and under Army discipline, would in future be employed at this place; and if he will say when this decision was arrived at, by whom, and for what reasons?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am making inquiry, and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. DONALD: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour what machinery has been set up in Ireland to further the technical and other training of demobilised officers and men, whose education or training was interrupted, for professional, business, trade, and agricultural appointments; whether wounded officers and men whose educational qualifications fit them for the same are being considered; and what will foe the procedure for finding suitable employment for these men in conjunction with the Labour Exchanges?

Sir R. HORNE: The machinery set up in Ireland for the training of demobilised officers and men is similar to that set up in other parts of the United Kingdom. Higher educational training is administered by the Irish Department, Agricultural and Technical Training by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, while the Ministry of Labour Is responsible for training in offices and works, and for all schemes of training in industrial occupations. As regards employment after training, the same facilities are afforded in Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom through the Appointments Department and the Employment Exchanges. As regards both training and appointments, wounded officers and men receive special consideration.

Mr. RAPER: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to replace girls temporarily employed in Government offices and elsewhere during the War by discharged and demobilised sailors and soldiers; and whether it is not considered desirable to provide such temporary employment for ex-sailors and ex-soldiers pending their securing permanent employment?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I agree that preference should be given to discharged soldiers in filling vacancies for temporary as for permanent appointments and all the Departments of the Government are doing what is possible to attain this result.

Mr. RAPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Women's Legion are employing women drivers at 42s. per week, and if they are not able to drive they give them free tuition and during the period of tuition they get free board and lodging and 10s. per week; and furthermore, the War Graves Commission quite recently, last week, engaged lady drivers at £2 17s. 6d. per week in France with free board and lodgings. May I have an answer to that?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's supplementary question contains a number of figures, and he could not expect a Minister to carry all those in his head.

Lieut.-Colonel Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the salaries offered to discharged men are adequate to the needs of adult men?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the salaries given for these appointments are adequate.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: No, they are not.

Mr. RAPER: In view of the widespread and natural interest in this matter, may I ask the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the subject?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid I cannot make a statement as to the figures which the hon. Gentleman has referred to, but the hon. Gentleman and the House may take it that the desire of the Ministry of Labour is to provide all possible employment for discharged soldiers and that we are taking means to supervise all temporary appointments held in the public ser-
vice with a view, so far as possible without hardship to others, to provide those appointments for discharged soldiers.

Mr. RAPER: If the right hon. Gentleman finds that what I have stated is the fact will he further consider the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: Certainly, if the facts are as the hon. Member suggests, then I will undoubedly have the matter seriously considered.

Mr. JOHN JONES: 33.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the period for payment of unemployment donation in the case of ex-Service men will shortly expire, he can state what steps are proposed to provide maintenance for such men until they obtain employment?

Sir R. HORNE: The Government are. aware that in the case of a number of ex-Service men the term of their unemployment donation under the original scheme is about to expire. The intention of the Government is to do in the case of ex-Service men what was done in the case of civilian workers when the term of their unemployment donation came to an end, namely, to continue it for six months to the extent of thirteen payments at the reduced rate of 20s. per week, together with the ordinary allowances for children, so as to meet the cases of those who cannot find work.

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-OF-WORK DONATION.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour whether a man who has signed on as unemployed for three days can at any time thereafter if he should be unemployed for six consecutive days obtain unemployment pay for such time as he remains unemployed; and whether, in the case of a man working three or four days a week and drawing unemployment pay, inquiry is made into the man's monthly earnings from casual labour before the unemployment donation is issued?

Sir R. HORNE: As regards the first part of the question, the rule is that an applicant for out-of-work donation must at the outset be unemployed for three consecutive working days before he becomes entitled to receive donation. He is not paid for those three days, but thereafter he is entitled, subject to the usual condi-
tions, to receive payment in respect of each day of unemployment until he obtains work (or fails to prove that he is out of work) for six consecutive working days. He must then serve a further waiting period of three days before becoming again entitled to donation. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. It would not be practicable to act upon the suggestion contained in it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

Mr. SPOOR: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any new Ministry has been formed in Egypt; and, if so, whether the Legislative Assembly will now be summoned?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford on 28th May, a new Ministry was formed on 21st May under the Presidency of Mohammed Said Pasha. Under present conditions in Egypt it would be premature to summon the Legislative Assembly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMYRNA (ALLEGED GREEK MASSACRES).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to statements made in the Press last Saturday with regard to the Greek atrocities at Smyrna; that a number of unarmed civilians and old men were massacred by the Greek soldiers; and, if so, whether those responsible for these atrocities will be put on their trial?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I regret to say that the landing of the Greek troops at Smyrna was attended by disorder and rioting, involving numerous casualties. My latest information is to the effect that the necessary measures are being taken to punish those responsible for the disturbances. Several persons caught pillaging, including two Greek soldiers, have been sentenced to death by court-martial and executed. A senior Greek officer who was at least partly responsible is being severely dealt with.

Lieut.-Colonel A. HERBERT: Does my hon. Friend realise the fact that it is we in India and in Egypt who have to bear the odium of these massacres that occur,
and for the sake of the honour of the Allies will they repudiate those Greek massacres?

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIAN CORPORATION, LIMITED.

Mr. DAWES: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office have in any one case previous to that of the Abyssinian Corporation, Limited, authorised the publication of an official letter recommending an issue of shares by a privately-promoted company; and why the State should not share in the profits made by the promoters of the Abyssinian Corporation, Limited, in view of the fact that the Foreign Office letter of the 13th May, 1919, was the sole basis on which applications for shares were made?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The letter of 13th May does not bear the construction put upon it by my hon. Friend, and the questions which he bases upon that construction do not, therefore, arise; but it is not the first time that such a letter has been written or published.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Sir STUART COATS: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government are supporting a group in China in connection with the consortium for loans which has been frequently mentioned in the Press; and do the Government intend to give a monopoly in view of the unsatisfactory consequences of the monopoly before the War on British trade?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: On the initiative of the American Government, negotiations have been proceeding for some months past for the formation of a new International Consortium for financing loans to China, and His Majesty's Government will naturally give full support to any British group which may be formed to take part in such a consortium. In regard to the alleged monopoly, His Majesty's Government have from the outset of the negotiations made it clear that there can be no question of exclusive official support to the British group unless that group is enlarged in such a manner as to render it sufficiently representative of the financial houses of good
standing interested in loans to China to give no cause for criticism on the ground of its restriction.

Mr. S. SAMUEL: Is it the intention of the Government to allow this financial group to support one merchant house in the taking of contracts, and is he aware that the practice before the War was——

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better give notice of that question.

Mr. MacVEAGH: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what is the intention of the Foreign Office with regard to China; whether it is intended to create a monopoly for financial transactions excluding many important British firms established in China, thus again driving business into the hands of foreign firms by refusing to support those British merchants who are in a position to secure contracts but who are not in the combine?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my reply today to the question on the same subject by the hon. Member for East Surrey.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROWN LANDS (TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO).

Mr. SPOOR: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to discourage settlement on Crown lands in Trinidad and Tobago; whether this policy has been adopted to secure a supply of cheap labour for the planters; and whether there are hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land still uncultivated in that Colony?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I understand that settlement on the Crown lands has been to some extent retarded in the past by the difficulties inherent in combining oil development with agricultural settlement, but under arrangements which have now been made I believe the Colonial Government will be able to overcome those difficulties. There is, of course, no intention of discouraging agricultural settlement, the importance of which to the Colony is fully recognised. A scheme has been initiated under which free grants of land will be made to returned Trinidad soldiers and several
fertile blocks of Crown land have been reserved for this purpose. There are estimated to be some 900,000 acres of uncultivated land in the Colony, but I have no figures to show how much of this may be arable land.

Mr. SPOOR: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition from the Trinidad Working Men's Association praying for the grant to Trinidad of a democratic constitution, including the grant of the franchise to all male British subjects over the age of twenty-one who are able to read and write English, and the election of the Legislative Council by popular vote; and whether it is proposed to take any steps in this direction?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The Secretary of State has received the petition to which the hon. Member refers, but he is informed by the Governor that the Trinidad Working Men's Association has no claim to represent any considerable section of the working classes of the Colony. It is not proposed to take action in the matter.

Mr. SPOOR: Is it not a fact that these men are simply asking for the same conditions as obtain in the French West Indies?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I should like to have notice of that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it the Trinidad Working Men's Association who pressed for that legislation dealing with habitual idlers in these Colonies?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I should like notice of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL DISCOVERY IN DERBYSHIRE (ROYALTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if landowners under whose land oil is discovered will be allowed to exact royalties on the output?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I must refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer I gave yesterday to a similar question by the hon. Member for Clay Cross.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HONOURS.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the suggestion that all recommendations for titles should be referred to a Committee of the Privy Council in order to advise him if anything is known against the character of the pro posed recipients and to consider the adequacy of the reasons for the proposed honours; and whether he proposes to take any action in relation thereto?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative.

Sir R. COOPER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can deny that honours have been conferred in recent times on persons whose character would not bear investigation, and if not——

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will he take into consideration that the Privy Council is a much older body than the Cabinet; in fact, that the Cabinet is a usurper of the Privy Council's functions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken; the Cabinet is a Committee of the Privy Council.

Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer during the Debate, will he place before the Prime Minister the strong feeling there is in regard to the suggested Committee of the Privy Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that strong feeling. In the course of the Debate I pointed out—and I think I was right—that no Prime Minister could hand over his responsibilities to a Committee, and I did not find that the House disagreed with that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

PRICES FOR LAND.

Mr. CAIRNS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the prices that are being asked for land for housing schemes for the working classes; and, if so, if he will take steps to put a stop to such prices being charged?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I am glad to say that, although there are exceptions, the prices being asked for land for housing schemes are generally not unreasonable. Arrangements have been in operation for some time under which the services of the officers of the Land Valuation Department have been made available to assist local authorities in the acquisition of sites.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is he aware that there is land laid out at £80 an acre at Hay dock, at £650 at Bootle, and at from £600 to £1,200 at Maryport?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (INDUSTRIAL HOURS).

Mr. TILLETT: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to include the Channel Islands within the scope of any measure having for its purpose the enforcement of a legal 48-hour week?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The regulation of the hours and conditions of employment in the Channel Islands has hitherto been regarded as a matter for the insular Legislatures to deal with. It will probably be found most convenient to follow the same course in the present instance, but I will consult the insular Governments on the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Colonel YATE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state whether it will be within the powers of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Government of India Bill, after the Second Reading of that Bill, to introduce an Amendment to give effect to the alternative proposal submitted by the majority of the provincial Governments in India to the system of dyarchy embodied in the Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is certainly our intention that this should be within the competence of the Committee, and the Bill has been drafted with this in view.

Colonel YATE: Then no objection will be taken to any Amendment on the ground that it infringes the principle of the Bill?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot, of course, answer that. A question of order must always be a question for Mr. Speaker, if in this House, or for the Chairman, and if the Chairman were in any doubt I have no doubt he would consult Mr. Speaker, but, as I have said, the Bill has been drafted with a view to making such an amendment in order.

Captain R. TERRELL: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to adhere to the undertaking given by the Secretary of State for India that a Joint Committee of both Houses would be appointed to hear evidence and discuss alternative proposals for Indian reform; and, if so, in what way will it be within the competence of the Committee to give guidance to the House in the event of the Second Reading of the Bill being carried?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I stated on Monday last, it is proposed to recommend to Parliament that the Bill should be committed to a Joint Committee after Second Reading. The House will be invited to empower the Committee to send for persons, papers, and records, and the Committee would then have power under S.O. 63 to make any special report which they may consider desirable, and this report would give guidance to the House. It will certainly be within the competence of the Committee to discuss alternative proposals for reform.

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we shall get the names of the members of that Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As soon as possible after the Second Reading is carried.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AMBASSADOR AT WASHINGTON.

Mr. DOYLE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if before the appointment of a new Ambassador at Washington is determined His Majesty's Government will consider whether, in view of Canada's geographical and economic position as regards the United States, her interests at Washington and her loyalty to and sacrifices for the British Empire, the time is now opportune to appoint a Canadian statesman to that position, in order to represent Imperial interests as a whole on the North American Continent?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on Monday last.

Mr. DOYLE: Is it not likely that Canada will have made her appointment before the British Ambassador is selected?

Mr. BONAR LAW: There is really no connection between the two.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

SHORTAGE AND HIGH PRICES.

Mr. J. JONES: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if he has considered the danger that may arise upon the signing of Peace terms in the matter of food shortage, particularly in view of the activity of the American Food Trust, who are now engaged in purchasing food supplies in all parts of the world; and if he is prepared to state what action the Government in tend to take to protect the people of this country against food shortage and high prices?

The MINISTER of FOOD (Mr. Roberts): I have been asked to reply. As I informed the hon. Member for Stratford on the 27th May, there is no reason to anticipate any considerable shortage in the supply to this country of essential foodstuffs, though one or two articles may continue to be relatively scarce. As I then stated, the most effective precaution consists in the provision of adequate tonnage for the importation of foodstuffs, and I have every reason to believe that this will be forthcoming. Ample supplies form the natural corrective of high prices; at present I can only say that the course of prices is being anxiously watched.

Mr. JONES: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I intend to raise this question on the Adjournment on Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN ARMIES (NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENTS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether our Russian Allies will permit any correspondents of British newspapers to accompany their armies in the field?

Captain GUEST: Permission would have to be obtained from the Russian Commanders-in-Chief concerned. So far as we are concerned there is no objection.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will my hon. Friend use his great influence to obtain this opportunity from the Russian Commander-in-Chief?

Captain GUEST: No, that is not suggested in the reply which I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — APOTHECARIES' ASSISTANTS (DRAFT BY-LAWS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 57.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the terms of the draft By-law made under Section 4 (b) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Acts, 1908, which the Pharmaceutical Society is considering, have been agreed upon in conjunction with the Privy Council; and will he state the terms of the By-law and give a list of the public institutions which it is proposed to recognise as institutions in which dispensing experience can be obtained by the apothecaries' assistants whom it is proposed to register as chemists and druggists under the terms of the By-law?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 27th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (HABITUAL IDLERS ORDINANCE).

Mr. SPOOR: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the closure of the Crown lands in Trinidad and Tobago and the operation of the Habitual Idlers Ordinance compels labourers to hire themselves for lower wages than they would otherwise be able to demand; and whether, seeing that the Habitual Idlers Ordinance relieves the prosecutor from the obligation of proving a charge brought under it and throws on the accused the obligation of proving his innocence, he will explain why assent was not withheld from the Ordinance?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: So far as I am aware, the Habitual Idlers Ordinance is not yet in operation, and I see no reason to anticipate that it will have the effect which the hon. Member fears. As regards the question of the onus of proof of charges under the Ordinance, the Secretary of State gave special consideration to this point, but was satisfied by the representations received from the Colonial Government that the Ordinance would be-
quite ineffectual if the onus of proof were placed upon the prosecutor. He consequently came to the conclusion that the case was a proper one for making an exception to the ordinary rule, but directed that an annual report should be furnished on the working of the Ordinance. I should add that the Ordinance provides that if habitual idleness is proved, the case is to be adjourned by the magistrate for at least a month to enable the accused to make an effort to work.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not this Ordinance solely directed to providing cheap labour for employers in the island?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir.

Mr. RAFFAN: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the propriety of introducing similar legislation in this country?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: The conditions in this country are very different.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA.

Major Earl WINTERTON: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if, before Northern. Rhodesia is incorporated in the Union or administratively joined to Southern Rhodesia, the opinion of the white inhabitants and, so far as it is possible to obtain it, of the native inhabitants will be taken to find out whether or not they are in favour of the change?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: Neither proposal is at present under consideration; but, in the event of any change in the administration of Northern Rhodesia being proposed, the views of the inhabitants would naturally receive the most careful consideration.

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read my question again, he will see that that is not the question I put to him. Will they be consulted, or their views be taken, and not merely consideration be given? Are we to understand that these people are to be taken out of their present system of administration and put under another system without a referendum in the country as to their views? If so, will he give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: No, Sir; I said their views would certainly be given consideration, but I do not think I could pledge the Government to take a referendum of the native inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: How can their views be ascertained unless their votes are taken?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: There are many ways of ascertaining people's views without a referendum.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Then it can only be by thought-reading.

Earl WINTERTON: Arising out of the question, which is one of the most importance to Northern Rhodesia, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake that no action will be taken until this House has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion? Is he aware that 99 per cent. of white opinion in the country is opposed to Northern Rhodesia being placed in the Union, which General Smuts is working all he can to bring about?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not aware of the accuracy of the last part of the question, and, as I said at the beginning of my answer, there is no question of Northern Rhodesia being incorporated.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUANDI AND URUNDI (BELGIAN CLAIM).

Brigadier-General Sir O. THOMAS: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the total aggregate cost up to the date of the Armistice of the East African campaign to the British Government and the Protectorates of British East Africa and Uganda; what proportion does such expenditure bear to the total expenditure by the Belgian Government in respect of their African campaigns; whether their territorial claim to Ruandi and Urundi is based upon their relative proportion of the total Anglo-Belgian expenditure; and, if not, on what grounds do the Belgians base such claim?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: As regards the cost of the East African campaign, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given in the House by the Under-Secretary of State for War to a similar question yesterday. I am not in a position to express an opinion upon the subject raised in the latter part of the question.

Sir O. THOMAS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman able to give the House the grounds on which the Belgians are making this extraordinary claim? They must be basing their claim on some grounds, and that is what I want to know on behalf of the people of that country as well as this House.

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise that if we discuss on the floor of this House all the reasons for which particular demands are made at the Peace Conference, it will impede the work of the Conference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is not the claim of the Belgians based on the admirable nature of their administration of the Congo?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that the natives of Ruandi and Urundi will be consulted?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: It would be a novel position to give an assurance on behalf of the Peace Conference.

Sir O. THOMAS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that during the occupation by the Belgians of Ruandi and Urundi the natives caused very great trouble?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY ORDNANCE SERVICE (PROMOTION).

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that many of the civilians permanently employed in the Army Ordnance service during the War have carried out important duties pertaining to the permanent ordnance depots, that for these services some of them have been highly commended by the War Office, but no promotions to posts higher than storeholders in the stores branch and foreman writers in the clerical branch have yet been made; and will he consider, in view of the services rendered by these men and seeing that many were mentioned in dispatches, the possibility of introducing a scheme of promotion allowing employés to advance to superior positions in the ordnance service?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The good services rendered by the civilians of the
Army Ordnance Department are fully recognised. The store holders and foremen writers are already at the top of their respective trees, and the administrative posts above them are necessarily of a military character to which it would not be possible to promote civilians.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they do not agree with that statement?

Mr. FORSTER: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will take steps to provide that officers who had retired with retired pay but rejoined on the outbreak of war shall, on refunding all sums received by them in respect of retired pay while re-employed during the War, be entitled to add the period of their commissioned service during the War to their former service in the Regular Army in assessing their rate of retired pay?

Mr. FORSTER: No, Sir; the whole body of retired officers have had the advantage of drawing retired pay while serving, and it is not possible to extend to those of the survivors whom it might benefit the conditions of a different system.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

COMMISSIONS FROM RANKS (GRATUITY).

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers and men, on being commissioned, cease to be entitled to the gratuity of £1 per annum granted to men whose service does not obtain for them a pension; and, if so, whether he will cancel this provision which inflicts hardship on men commissioned from the ranks?

Mr. FORSTER: A soldier discharged on receiving a commission as an officer draws the gratuity due to him up to date of discharge. I do not understand my Noble Friend to suggest that an officer who has served in the ranks should specially continue to earn the gratuity.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the assessment of the gratuity granted under Article 572a of the Royal Warrant to non-commissioned officers who have received commissions, no account is taken of any part of a year but only of the complete years service; and whether he will modify the method of assessment so that these officers may receive a gratuity for the full period of their service?

Mr. FORSTER: The Regulation referred to follows the usual rule in matters of retired pay and pension, of counting completed years only. It is not proposed to alter it.

GRATUITY (PAYMENT).

Mr. N. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for War whether Private P. M'Gucken, No. 14424, 11th Scottish Rifles, who enlisted 20th September, 1914, end served in France and Salonika, and was demobilised on 23rd March, 1919, has not yet received his gratuity although the Controller, Post Office Savings Banks, has been written to several times; and what steps he proposes to take to speed up these Departments in assessing the awards and thereby avoid the irritation and unrest caused by these delays?

Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that Private M'Cucken's Savings Bank book was forwarded in the ordinary course to the local post office, and that he was notified at the time, but has not called for the book. A fresh notification has now been sent to him from the Savings Bank.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask if the information that Private M'Gucken had not applied at the Post Office has been supplied by the postal authorities?

Mr. FORSTER: I have no reason to think this is otherwise than correct, but if the hon. Member will give me any information he has I will have further inquiries made.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION.

RELEASE (APPLICATION).

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Private J. Davie, No. 43976, 3rd Battalion Royal Scots, who enlisted 10th November, 1916, was wounded in France and sent home, and was seven months without
speech, and is still in the same condition when excited, has been retained in the Service; if he is aware that he has been sent from Edinburgh to Hants, to be included in a draft for Russia; and whether this man can be demobilised?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): Inquiries are being made into this case, and I will inform my hon. Friend of the result as soon as possible. No one but volunteers are going to Russia.

Sir H. NIELD: 84.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that application has been made to the War Office for the release, on compassionate grounds, of Private L. E. Sutton, M/320530, 906th Company, Mechanical Transport, Royal Army Service Corps, Egyptian Expeditionary Force, and that such application has been refused as not coming within Army Council Instruction 287, of 1919; whether he is aware that this man's mother is a widow, and that he is her only son and sole support; that she is nearly blind, and that upon the decease of her husband she applied for an increase of her Government allowance, which is only 10s. per week, and that her application was refused; and if he will, therefore, take steps to amend the Army Council Instruction referred to, or the separation; allowance regulations, so as to make provision for such cases?

Mr. CHURCHILL: From the particulars given, this case does not appear to fall within any of the categories prescribed in the instructions recently issued, governing releases on compassionate grounds. I regret, therefore, that his release cannot be sanctioned. In the time available, it has not been possible to inquire as to the separation allowance, but I will write to my hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible.

Sir H. NIELD: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that the man, having gone into the Army at a time when he was only contributing 10s. a week to the household, that that is the allowance to his mother; that the father has since died, and that the poor mother is only getting 10s., yet this man cannot be demobilised?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure that the publicity given to the case will ensure its careful examination in the light of the rules.

Mr. A. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to amend the Regulations in accordance with his speech only a few days ago?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question was "whether an extension of the principle on compassionate grounds for other than purely family reasons could be permitted." That was the extent of my undertaking. There are obviously great difficulties in it. It might easily become a matter of favouritism.

Mr. G. THORNE: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement?

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is many weeks ago since he first made that announcement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Well, Sir, it may be so. But in the interval the scale of compassionate allowances has been greatly increased, and during the whole of the time men have been released from the Army at the rate of very nearly 10,000 a day.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the result of these concessions is that it is more difficult than ever to get men out of the Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are fewer men than ever before to get out!

Captain O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an inquiry as to the number of compassionate cases turned down by the War Office—by himself!—in the last two months?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would be more profitable to take the number of cases which have been accepted.

OVER-AGE SIGNALLERS.

Mr. LUNN: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Sapper T. Enderby, No. 147963, of the 11th Divisional Signal Company, British Expeditionary Force, is forty-two years of age and has been unable to secure demobilisation; and whether he will do his utmost to replace all these over-age signallers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Instructions have already been issued for the release of Sapper Enderby.

RELEASE ON COMPASSIONATE GROUNDS.

Mr. C. WHITE: 93.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he will at once issue instructions for the cancelling or revising of Army Council Instruction 287, of 1919, which defines the grounds upon which soldiers may be granted release on compassionate grounds; and whether he will consider the advisability of setting up tribunals consisting of business men and women, with one representative from the War Office, to consider such cases, by which it may be possible that appeals may be judged impartially and from a human instead of a purely military and arbitrary standpoint?

Mr CHURCHILL: I regret that my hon. Friend's proposal cannot be entertained.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR IN GERMANY.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Private John Cowan Brown, of C Company, 15th Royal Scots, was reported missing on 9th April, 1918; whether it has now been ascertained that at that time, or shortly afterwards, he was a prisoner of war in Germany; and whether he can state what efforts have been made to trace Private Brown, and with what result?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Private J. C. Brown was originally reported missing during the period 9th-16th April, 1918. The British Military Mission, Berlin, have now reported that he died on 8th April, 1918, and was buried by the Germans at Etaing. There is no evidence, however, to show whether he was killed in action or whether he died of wounds immediately after capture.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: 80.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether Lieut. H. D. Blackburn, 1st Battalion, Royal Berkshire Regiment, attached Royal Flying Corps, was reported missing on 5th April, 1917; whether it has now been ascertained that he was then or soon after a prisoner of war in Germany; and whether he can state what efforts have been made to trace Lieut. Blackburn, and with what result?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Lieut. Blackburn was reported missing on the 5th April, 1917, and his name was included in the next list sent to Germany for circulation
in all camps and hospitals. The information was subsequently received from Lieut. Blackburn's observer, who was captured by the Germans on the occasion in question, to the effect that Lieut. Blackburn was killed on the date mentioned. The evidence was verified, and death was accepted for official purposes as having occurred on the 5th April, 1917. I am informed that there is no report of Lieut. Blackburn having been a prisoner of war in Germany.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think the time has now arrived when he might lay on the Table a full list of the names of all those who are known now to have been prisoners of war in Germany at the time they were reported dead or missing, with a full statement of where they died and when, in order to allay the anxiety of their relatives in this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will consider that matter, and if it is thought convenient, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will move for a Return. If it is convenient, I will not oppose the Motion.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOLUNTEER FORCE.

Major MALONE: 81.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet come to a decision with reference to the Volunteer force of this country; if it is the intention to continue their service or not; and what form of recognition, if any, he proposes to give for the services rendered by them during the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am afraid I can add nothing at present to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke Newington on the 3rd April. The decision is dependent on the future constitution of the after-War Army and the policy to be adopted with regard to the Auxiliary forces. As stated in the reply referred to, the question of the grant of a badge is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATES' GRATUITIES.

Dr. M'DONALD: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for War why many demobilised privates are prevented from drawing their gratuities by the Post Office officials although the money is deposited in savings banks for their benefit?

Mr. FORSTER: I am informed that all applications for withdrawal are dealt with promptly, that no delay occurs except where the applicant fails to give correct particulars, and that in such cases the Savings Bank officials take immediate action to obtain the correct particulars.

Dr. M'DONALD: May I say that the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must not make a statement. He had better put it in the form of an interrogatory.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY PENSIONS (REPORT OF COMMISSION).

Sir M. DOCKRELL: 83.
asked the Secretary of State for War how soon the Report of the Commission upon Military Pensions will be published?

Mr. FORSTER: I can add nothing at present to my reply on the 22nd May to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Clackmannan and Eastern Division of Stirling and Clackmannan.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Does that mean that the Report will be issued shortly?

Mr. FORSTER: The tenour of my reply was that I was afraid I was unable to name a date.

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICERS (GRATUITY).

Mr. R. McNEILL: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether officers who held temporary commissions during the War lose the right to gratuity at the rate payable to temporary officers if since the Armistice they have accepted permanent commissions?

Mr. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; they receive the war gratuity of Regular officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (STRENGTH).

Mr. C. WHITE: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many men, apart from commissioned officers, are now serving in the Army?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number on the 21st May was 1,320,000. May I add that I am very much obliged to hon. Members who have postponed these questions.
Yesterday, being the King's birthday, was observed to a certain extent as a holiday in the Government Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — APPLICATION FOR LEAVE (DYING BROTHER).

Mr. C. WHITE: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether an application was made by telegraph by the Superintendent of Police, Ashbourne, on 9th May last, for special leave for Private T. Fearn, No. 235469, 21st Divisional Headquarters, British Expeditionary Force, France, for the purpose of seeing his brother who was dying; whether he is aware that no reply was received from the War Office till the 13th May, when leave was refused on the grounds that it was only granted to men in their turn; whether he is aware that Private Fearn's brother died in the interval between the 9th May and the 13th May; whether he is aware that Private Fearn and the brother now deceased joined the Army in August, 1914, and served throughout the whole War; and whether he will state the reasons why leave is withheld in cases such as this?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The grant of special leave rests with the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Expeditionary Force concerned, and at no time since the beginning of the War has the War Office asked a General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of an Expeditionary Force to grant special leave to any men to return home on account of the serious illness of a brother. The efforts of the Department to secure special leave are entirely confined to cases where the wife or a parent of a soldier serving overseas is dangerously ill.

Mr. WHITE: Why was no answer sent to the communication till 13th May?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can only suppose that it was because of the ordinary pressure of work.

Mr. WATERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to alter such Regulations that are now in force at the War Office so as to facilitate releases of this character, which involve, in some cases, extreme hardship?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join with other hon.
Members in desiring an early and effective reduction of the staff of the War Office, and also of all other Government Departments. But if the enormous correspondence with which we have to deal is to be accelerated in its dispatch, it will require a great increase of staff, and not the diminution which the House desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL OUTPUT.

STATEMENT BY SIR A. GEDDES.

Mr. MACKINDER: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give any estimates of the output of coal for the twelve months following the shortening of the working- hour day on the 16th July next; of the extent to which it may be possible to increase the limited quantities of coal now available for export; and of the deficiency of the working of the industry during the same period?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I have gone carefully into this matter with the Controller of Coal Mines, and I regret to have to inform the House that the coal position is serious. So far as it is possible to judge after taking into account the latest information available, the estimated output of coal for twelve months from July, 1919, after the reduced hours have come into force is between 214,000,000 and 217,000,000 tons per annum. This compares with a pre-war output in the year 1913 of 287,000,000 tons. The consumption of coal for inland purposes and bunkers, which was for the year 1913 210,000,000 tons, had fallen to 196,000,000 tons for the year 1918.
The exports of coal in the year 1913 were 77,000.000 tons, and in the year 1918 34,000,000 tons. In order to preserve, approximately, the same quantity of coal for inland consumption and bunkers for twelve months from July, 1919, all present restrictions on consumption must be fully maintained, and, in addition, exports must be reduced from a rate of 34,000,000 tons per annum to a rate of 23,000,000 tons per annum. It is estimated that the deficiency on the working of the industry on the basis of the estimated outputs given for the period of twelve months from July next, after providing for the guaranteed profits to owners at the rate of 1s. 2d. per
ton, will be about £46,600,000, equal to 4s. 3d. per ton of output. It will be recognised that this means either an increase of price to the consumer of about 4s. 6d. per ton (to provide a small margin), or that the deficiency will fall on the taxpayer.
With regard to the future of rationing, although the quantity of coal available for inland consumption and bunkers will be no more than in 1918, the Controller of Coal Mines hopes to introduce modifications in the present system to the extent that all consumers of below 5 tons per annum of coal, 12,500 cubic ft. of gas per quarter, and 400 B.T.U. per quarter of electricity will be exempt from rationing. It is proposed that above these limits the present assessments shall continue in force for another twelve months from 1st July, and that consumers will be allowed between 1st July and 30th September to stock up to their present assessments so far as the coal may be available. It is also under consideration to modify to some extent the present transport reorganisation scheme with a view to giving it greater elasticity.

Colonel YATE: Is the rationed coal allowance to the miners themselves under or over the 5-ton limit?

Sir A. GEDDES: I shall require notice of that question.

MISS DOUGLAS-PENNANT.

GOVERNMENT DECISION.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: On the suggestion of the Leader of the House, I beg to repeat the question which I put yesterday as to whether the Government are now prepared, in view of what occurred in the other House last week, to agree to set up a Committee of Inquiry in respect of Miss Douglas-Pennant's dismissal?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Government have given most careful consideration to the opinion expressed by the House of Lords that a Judicial inquiry should be held into the circumstances in which Miss Douglas-Pennant was removed from her appointment under the Air Ministry in August of last year. The Government see no sufficient reason for departing from the decision already taken by them. The responsibility of instituting such an inquiry must rest upon the Government. It would involve a large expenditure of
public money, it would be contrary to the general principles of Departmental administration, and it would establish a very undesirable precedent, for if an inquiry were agreed to in regard to this lady, who has great personal influence, it would be difficult to justify the refusal to take a similar course in the case of many others who are not in an equally influential position. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have decided that they cannot assume the responsibility of setting up this tribunal.

Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that in this case there has been made public the suggestion that there are grave irregularities in this particular Department, and, if that is so, will not the right hon. Gentleman's answer rather confirm the belief, which holds very widely in the public mind, that there is something very bad behind it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not the least afraid of that belief being entertained. The reasons I have given are quite sufficient. If such a precedent were established, I cannot see where it would end.

An HON. MEMBER: Does not the decision of the Government mean that a Minister has the right, in the exercise of his authority, to destroy, set aside, and abrogate entirely the personal rights and safeguards which are given under the Regulations under which people are serving?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It means nothing of the kind, but it does mean that the head of a Government Department, like the head of every other administrative business, must be free to make changes in regard to those who assist him, if for reasons which seem to him good a change is necessary.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that Miss Douglas-Pennant was not superseded, but was dismissed, which is a very different thing?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think it is possible to argue the question. I believe it was admitted, and Lord Weir made an apology, as to the method in which the decision was announced, but the point goes far beyond that, and it is whether the officer responsible for the Department is justified in making a change.

Sir R. THOMAS: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and having regard to
the very important and even vital letters which have been omitted from the White Paper which has been laid on the Table of the House, letters which affect very materially this case, I beg to ask permission to raise this matter at a quarter-past eight this evening as a matter of definite public importance.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has omitted one of the most important words in connection with that Standing Order—namely, the word "urgent."

Sir R. THOMAS: I beg to add that word.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can hardly ask me to say that this is an urgent matter, because it has been before the House for the last two or three months, and has been discussed here more than once. Therefore, I could not accept a Motion of that sort as being within the Rule which says these matters must be urgent

Sir R. COOPER: May we give notice that we shall raise this on the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, as often as you like.

Orders of the Day — FEDERAL DEVOLUTION.

CREATION OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATURES.

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [3rd June].
That, with a view to enabling the Imperial Parliament to devote more attention to the general interests of the United Kingdom and. in collaboration with the other Governments of the Empire, to matters of common Imperial concern, this House is of opinion that the time has come for the creation of subordinate Legislatures within the United Kingdom, and that to this end the Government, without prejudice to any proposals it may have to make with regard to Ireland, should forthwith appoint a Parliamentary body to consider and report—

(1) upon a measure of Federal Devolution applicable to England, Scotland, and Ireland, defined in its general outlines by existing differences in law and administration between the three countries;
(2) upon the extent to which these differences are applicable to Welsh conditions and requirements; and
(3) upon the financial aspects and requirements of the measure."

Question again proposed.

4.0 P.M.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: There was a very remarkable consensus of agreement in regard to the Motion before the House in the Debate which took place yesterday during the portion of it that I. heard, and the remaining portion I have since read. I do not think there can be any doubt that the reason for that consensus of agreement is to be found in the present experience of almost every hon. Member of the House of Commons now assembled. Our work has been more than doubled, in fact it is not any exaggeration to say it has been at least trebled, and what we have been trying to do is to meet the situation by triplicating ourselves. A very strong statement was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn (Sir E. Carson) yesterday. I do not go quite so far as he does on this question, but what he said was:
I believe that as things are at present (referring to the Grant Committee system) it will ruin this House. I admit that I supported it, but I never for a moment thought that the business we were on would, as I have no doubt it does, require them to sit there so long that the whole of their time would be taken up, and they would be able to give no attention whatever to this House.
Someone told me the story of the man who lost half an hour earlier in the day and spent the whole of the rest of the day in trying to catch it up. That is not an
unfair description of hon. Members of this-House, and certainly Ministers will feel that it is a wholly accurate description of them. Let me give one little experience-of my own. I have been one of the chief sufferers because I have to attend in the House as much as possible, and I spend a great deal of time in the House, but it is imperative for me to attend at least two Committees which have been and are now sitting. What happened this morning in the Scottish Committee on Housing I We went through a very large amount of business, I do not say inefficiently, but I do say that the business we did there this-morning was not the kind of attention to the details of legislation which is at all likely to prevent subsequent litigation, and at no distant date fresh legislation. That Committee at this very moment is going on to-deal certainly with one of the most important parts of the measure—the new Clauses—and here we are discussing a Motion which very definitely relates to the question of legislation and the administration of Scottish affairs in a separate Legislative Assembly in Scotland. I admit at once that we are going through a time of great emergency and that, therefore, we must take emergency measures, but there is no doubt, if this system is to be pursued, that the authority of this House will be most seriously shaken. I do not hold the view, which some hon. Members do, that that authority is likely to be seriously shaken by the attempts that we are now making-to cope with a large mass of legislation. I am quite sure that the public will understand that it is an effort put out to meet a particular and special emergency. The cry for legislation is very clamant, or is supposed to be very clamant, but, personally, I do not know how far legislation is going to cure many of our social defects. As far as my recollection goes—I have not had an opportunity of refreshing it—there was one of the Greek Republics called Lockria which suffered very much from a great output of legislation. Subsequently an edict was issued somewhat to the effect that any legislator who proposed a new Bill should go out into the market place with a rope round his neck, and that any member of the public in that market place, if he objected to the piece of legislation attached to that particular senator, should be at liberty to pull it tight. My classical recollection probably wants some refreshing, but, at any rate, the opinion is now
widely held that in that Republic legislation was afterwards very considerably restricted, and, if my right hon. Friend the junior Member for the City (Sir F. Ban-bury) were here, it is the sort of precedent that he would receive with enthusiastic approval.
What sort of chance have we in this House to supervise administration? What chance have we of real effective legislation? I do not think that there is very much doubt in the minds of most people that our present system requires drastic amendment. There is another point which I think appeals to us all, or, at any rate, to those who have been some considerable time in the House of Commons. Ministers are becoming much too highly specialised. The extreme point to which specialisation is driven, as far as Ministers and their Departments are concerned, inevitably tends to destroy to a very large extent one of the most important features of our Government, namely, the joint responsibility of those high officers of the State who constitute the Government for the time being. After all, what is one of their great functions? It is like the function of big men everywhere. After a while, after having gone through all the processes of experience, the great use of a man of long experience and high capacity is his power to decide things. Our Ministers, after all are not merely governing the United Kingdom; they are in a very special sense governing one-fifth of the globe. There are many decisions constantly necessary to be given with regard to even the most, self-governing of our Dominions, and, as regards India, that vast problem which is on our Empire's horizon to-day, and the Crown Colonies, I should say that every day of the official life of any Government great decisions have to be taken.
It all depends upon the atmosphere in which these decisions are taken whether they are likely to be well-thought out, sound, and judicial. In what kind of atmosphere are His Majesty's Ministers compelled to work? Of course, now is an exceptional time; but even in the piping times of peace it was an atmosphere which was wholly unsuitable to calm consideration and swift and necessary decision. Our system is a system of world-government. After all, that is what it comes to, because any decision by the British Cabinet on matters outside the United Kingdom nine times out of ten is a world decision. The atmosphere in which they have to work is quite unsuited for the
right kind of decision being given. The marvel is that they are right so often. It reflects a very great deal of credit upon the traditional and almost the inherent capacity of this country for government that more mistakes have not been made. The difficulties are accumulating. What have we to look forward to? Have we to look forward to a state of things which is-going to be less complex or more complex? I have not the slightest doubt that it will be more complex at home, throughout our Dominions, and the world over, and it is high time that we put ourselves in order and in a fit condition to grapple with; these things. Of course, the British way is to wait until you are in trouble and then do your best to get out of it now much better it would be if we were to seek now, in the way which this Motion indicates, somes means of getting cur-selves ready to meet these tremendous problems which are already almost hard, pressing upon us.
The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Long) yesterday made a point of great importance. "Our legislation," he said, "is becoming riot so much a matter of Statutes which appear on the Statute Book as of Regulations which are issued under them." That is profoundly true. There is the English Housing Bill which has just passed through this House, and there is the Scottish Housing Bill which is at present passing through the Committee stage. The most important parts of those measures are really in the Regulations. I know that it is emergency legislation, but what happened under the Military Service Act? My recollection of that Act is a pretty acute one. We passed the Statute here, but the Regulations under which all the tribunals had to work were the real thing, and they, of course, became a pure Departmental matter. It is inevitable and we cannot help it—under the system I do not see any other way of doing it, and I am not complaining about it—but every legislative week more power goes out of this House into the Departments. The power of bureaucracy steadily increases and the power and control of Members of Parliament over the Executive and the Departments steadily decreases. We have all pretty well come to the conclusion that that ought not to go on. Yesterday references were made to foreign systems. The United States, with a population of about 100,000,000, have forty-eight State Legislatures; Germany, with its 66,000,000, has
twenty-six State Legislatures; Canada, with 8,000,000, has nine Provincial Legislatures; Australia, with 5,000,000, has six State Legislatures, and we, with 45,000,000 odd and an Empire covering one-fifth of the globe, have the whole of the burdens falling upon Parliament as we' know it to-day.
It is an interesting thing that where ever new Legislatures have been set up or administrative changes introduced, they have always been upon the plan which is indicated in the Motion now before the House. It is quite true that we have not grown up in that way. The essential difference is that we have not a Constitution superimposed upon us by Statute. The British Constitution is a thing which exists, like the British Common Law, and it develops and adapts itself from time to lime as need makes it apparent. The time has undoubtedly come for a change. I would, however, express the hope that, what ever may be done, there will be no attempt to superimpose a Statute which will bind the supreme Parliament as we know it. We should thereby break with the traditions of the past in a way which I, for one, would be extremely chary of attempting to do. There, at any rate, we have what we may call "modern experience," and in some way or other there is no doubt that we shall have to adjust our machinery to it. A good deal was said about Ireland. I may disappoint some hon. Members, but I feel bound to say that if anybody imagines that by a kind of Legislative Assembly which might be set up in York, Winchester, or Cardiff we are going to solve the Irish problem, he makes a big mistake. It is always better to face the facts. You have there a country which at present is held down by 40,000 add troops with artillery, with machine guns, and the whole paraphernalia of war. It is just like attempting to put out a City fire, by squirting rose water on it.
The problem is tremendous. It is not comparable at all with the devolution of domestic business from this House to minor legislative assemblies. This is not the time for a Home Rule Debate, but I may say in passing that this suggestion may be extremely useful and may tend to minimise the Irish problem by the process known as infiltration. But that takes a long time. The problem of Ireland is insistent and immediate, and I do not think
it will wait for the procedure adumbrated in the Motion now before the House. Something must be done if we are going to maintain the authority of Parliament as was said by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Motion yesterday in a speech to which we all listened with very great pleasure and profit. It was a plucky speech from his point of view, a speech marked by statesmanship. We must maintain the authority of Parliament. Very serious times are before us. Parliament is representative of all classes of society here to-day, in greater or lesser numbers. Some might be more adequately represented, but at any rate we are all here represented, and we shall get through the hard and difficult times almost precisely in proportion to the amount of moral authority which Parliament wields. I am sure with such a Motion as has been moved, seconded, and debated, if carried into effect and if an inquiry is immediately held, good results must come.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I must say I listened with a certain amount of disappointment to the speech of my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) because he told us at the outset that he had either heard or read the whole. Debate which took plane yesterday on this subject I thought therefore he would have been struck, as I have been, by what appeared to me to be serious omissions on the part of the supporters of this Resolution. I gathered he was going to supply those omissions. I am sorry he failed to do so. Let me point out in my opinion what the omissions were. This Resolution appears to me to contain in itself two propositions, both of which must be affirmed by those who are prepared to support it. The first of those propositions is that there is such a congestion of business, such an impossibility of carrying on under the present system that some change must be made. The second proposition is that, assuming that to be true, the best way—indeed, the only way—of making that change is that which is suggested in the Resolution. Having listened to the Debate or read those parts of it which I did not hear yesterday, like my right hon. Friend opposite, I am strongly of opinion that, although there were many speeches made in favour of this Resolution, not one single speaker, or any combination of speakers, really offered sufficient proof of either of those two propositions. Let me refer to the first about congestion. On that we really have had no practical evi-
dence. We have had a certain amount of evidence, such as was given by my right hon. Friend just now with regard to his own experience—he felt he ought to be in the Scottish Committee upstairs and at the same moment ought to be in the House. One can understand there is in that evidence of incompleteness of procedure. But is it the permanent procedure of this House? I have never been led to believe that the present procedure of Grand Committees and the present rush of business to Grand Committees, is intended or likely to be a permanent feature Therefore, I do not think you can support a motion of this kind for making a far-reaching and revolutionary change in the constitution of the country merely because of the emergency which followed upon the War, and the great rush of legislation required in a very short time. For one Session, at all events, we are subjected to the inconvenience of which my right hon. Friend complains. We have had a certain amount of evidence of that sort, and we have had a great deal of eloquence as distinguished from evidence as to the impossibility of the present system of congestion. That is common knowledge. But I expected my right hon. Friend to have noticed that omission, and to have come prepared to tell the House what measure—I have been unable to find one—within the last few years, backed up and demanded by public opinion in the country, has been held up and failed to become law for want of time to carry it in this House. I have myself been trying to think of any practical measure of legislation proposed in the country, and undoubtedly backed up by the country, for which this House has been unable to find time to pass it into law.
What has been our experience during the last few years? Let me put to the House another line of argument. Take the last two Sessions of the last Parliament. I do not think the demands on the time of the House were any less during the War, for great masses of emergency legislation were put forward, and there certainly was as much occasion for inquiry into, and criticism of, the administration of the War; there was as much demand in every way on the time of the House as there is likely to be in the near future. Yet what was our experience? Week after week and month after month the House never sat on a Friday at all. There was a Sessional Order. I believe, that the House should not sit on Fridays unless
otherwise determined. It was also a common experience that whereas the normal time for the sitting of the House was until eleven o'clock it constantly rose between 7.30 and 8. The working time of the House, I venture to affirm, during the last three or four years of the last Parliament was not anything like used to its fullest extent. What is our experience during the present Session?

Sir D. MACLEAN: My hon. and learned Friend must surely carry in his mind that there was a condition of war.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I began by saying that the condition of war, if anything, added to the burden which this House had to bear in regard to legislation, and that the amount of criticism of administration was equally full. But what is our experience this very Session, which has in a few months produced this Resolution? I have not made inquiry into statistics, but day after day the House, has been up at seven or eight o'clock, there has never been a full week's sitting such as we were accustomed to in old times, sitting on till eleven o'clock each evening, with an occasional suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and an occasional all-night sitting. We have not had any such experience. We have been going extremely leisurely during the present Session.

Sir D. MACLEAN: We want a few more by-elections.

Mr. R. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend is very pleased to refer to the by-elections, but if I may use a homely phrase I think he is rather bucking himself up too much about them. At any rate we who disagree with him have nothing to fear on that score. I want to point out further that if there was a circumstance to band to disprove the whole case for this proposed congestion of work in the House of Commons it is to be found in the fact that at this time, the most important part of the Session, when as a rule in the past we have found the Government beginning to take all the time of the House, and to reckon up almost hour by hour whether they will be able to get their programme through by the end of the Session—at such a time as this the Government have actually thrown away two days of Parliamentary time to discuss a private Resolution of this sort, upon which they announce they are going to take no action at all. Not only that, but even on the first day, notwithstanding a very carefully elaborated claque on the
part of the newspapers, which declared that this Motion was going to excite an immense amount of public interest, even on the first day of the Debate twice had the bells to be set ringing in order to get a quorum into this House. The suggestion cannot be that this was due to the sitting of Grand Committees. That yesterday had nothing to do with the attendance in this House, which was just as meagre during the last two years as it has been in this Session, and there were no Grand Committees sitting upstairs last year. Yet everyone, I am sure, including my right hon. Friend the Member for the Spen Valley (Sir T. P. Whittaker), who I believe is going to speak on this Motion, will not controvert that point, that in the last Parliament the House was quite as sparsely attended as it is to-day, when the whole blame for the state of affairs is now being put—wrongly and unjustly, as I think—on the sittings of the Grand Committees.
My right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal wing of the Gemini said just now that one of the results of this terrible congestion of business was that our legislation is now being carried on so much by rules find regulations. In that he was following my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, who said the same thing yesterday. He also referred to legislation by Orders in Council. I entirely agree with my two right hon. Friends in the view they take of that manner of drafting Bills, but neither of them attempted to show—and, indeed, I think neither could have shown that want of time in this House has anything in the world to do with legislation by rules and regulations or by Orders in Council. The reason is mainly that the Departments who require these Bills desire to have greater elasticity in the application of them. At any rate, it has nothing to do with any limitation of time at the disposal of the House of Commons. Tomorrow the House is going to be asked to consider a Bill entirely changing the whole government of India. That Bill is a mere frame of black canvas into which the whole picture is to be painted by rules and regulations, and that is not because there is no time in this House to discuss it. Why did not the Government put down the Second Reading of the Government of India Bill for the two days we have been wasting our time over this Resolution? It is not want of time. The
Secretary of State for India has accompanied the Bill by a memorandum in which he defends the principles embodied in it, and explains the reasons for the procedure adopted in incorporating into the Bill a great number of rules and regulations with power to make them.
Therefore that particular criticism as to our present methods of legislation has nothing to do with the subject. The First Lord of the Admiralty and some other hon. Members have made a great point of the alleged decline in the prestige of Parliament. They say that that decline is entirely due to the supposed fact that we have not time to get through our work. There, again, no evidence whatsoever, beyond mere eloquence and assertion, has been offered in support of that proposition. I do not believe that has anything to do with it. I believe there has been a decline in the prestige of Parliament, but I should attribute it to very different causes indeed. This would not be the occasion to do more than intimate the sort of things which have brought it about. Nothing has done so much to bring about the decline in the prestige of Parliament as the fact that we are now the paid servants instead of the honorary servants of the public. The payment of Members has done much to destroy the prestige of Parliament in the eyes of the public outside. I agree that that is merely a matter of opinion and I am not prepared at the moment to do more than offer that as my opinion. There is as much evidence for it as has been offered for the statement that it is due to the lack of time.
Another matter that has very largely affected the prestige of Parliament is the increasing power asserted by the Ministry of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but that, again, has nothing whatever to do with the amount of time. I believe that what we are doing now with regard to putting on the Government Whips is absolutely unnecessary. Heaps of Bills are brought in. Take one which is fresh in my mind, the Local Government Bill for Ireland altering the methods of elections in that country. It was not supported by any of the Irish parties. That is neither here nor there. The point is, especially as it was not demanded by any of the Irish parties, that the Government might well have left it to the decision of the House. A great number of the Bills brought in might so be left to the decision of the House. But when every measure, great and small, brought in, it goes out
to all the Members of the House that it is a matter of confidence in the Government, and they feel bound either to go in and vote behind the Government Whips or in the Government Lobby, otherwise they would destroy the Government of the day. That destroys all initiative on the part of the private Members. Members stay outside in the other precincts rather than in the Chamber. There is no inducement to listen to the arguments. It is no use having any cant about these matters. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, Members who are supporters of the Government, even with the present large majority, are not prepared to vote against the Government. That is owing to the way in which they are dragooned in order to support measures which ought never to be made matters of confidence in the Government. It is that, and not any want of time or anything to do with the Grand Committees upstairs, which has destroyed the interest of private Members in the proceedings in the House, and, in consequence, the interest and respect of the public outside in the proceedings that go on here. I would like to ask the supporters of this Resolution, who have based so much of their case upon the work of the Grand Committees, how the actual procedure of the House during this Session would have been altered and affected supposing that these subordinate- legislatures called for in the Resolution were already in existence. The great Bills which are being considered upstairs, would they or would they not be still considered in this Parliament, or would they be delegated to some subordinate legislature? Not one single hon. Member who has supported the Resolution up to now has thought it worth while to refer to that point, yet it is one of vital importance.

Mr. MURRAY MACDONALD: The terms of the Resolution provide that wherever there are differences in law the subject of the law goes to the subordinate Parliament, whereas now we are legislating for England, Scotland, and Ireland in separate matters of legislation.

Mr. McNEILL: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but he does not in the least degree relieve me of the difficulty. Take one of the great Bills on which Parliament has been engaged—the Bill for setting up a Health Ministry. Take another one—perhaps it is a stronger one in support of my point—the Bill for setting up a Ministry of Transport. Those
measures have been recommended to the House especially on the ground that they cover a great national field of reform. Take even matters such as the right hon. Gentleman has just alluded to, where there are minor differences of law and possibly of administration in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively. Take education. If you are going to deal with education, I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman who seconded this Resolution would say that education obviously is a matter which must be dealt with by each of the several local legislatures. There might be other subjects. What would he say about those I have already mentioned, transport, housing, and health?

Mr. MACDONALD: For housing and health we have separate measures.

Mr. McNEILL: Even under those Bills where you could divide them among the several legislatures as regards administration, they must all rest upon a common finance. These are practical matters which the supporters of the Resolution have apparently thought entirely beneath their notice. I want to know assuming that these legislatures were set up, what financial delimitation is it proposed should be set up as regards the taxing authority as between this Parliament and an English Parliament, a Scottish Parliament and an Irish Parliament? We had sufficient difficulties, heaven knows, when we were discussing Home Rule for Ireland. There would be the difficulties of finance when you have set up, say, in England, first of all a taxing authority in this House dealing with Imperial subjects, whatever they may be, and then you would have an English Parliament which, as my hon. Friend for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder) said in his excellent speech yesterday, scarcely, if at all inferior to this Parliament. What taxing authority is that Parliament going to have? You are going to have in any county or borough in England three large separate taxing authorities—the Imperial Parliament, the English Parliament, and the local rating authority. I will not say that the demarcation of those various taxing authorities passes the wit of man, but I do say when right hon. and hon. Members propose a Resolution to this House that that is a fundamental difficulty with which they ought to deal, and they ought not to ask this House to pass a Resolution of this sort, airily saying that the whole method of government of this country is to be upset, without offering for the con-
sideration of the House one single particle of evidence as to how the financial difficulty is to be met. How do the supporters of this Resolution define what is imperial finance, what is national finance, and what is local finance? Have they in their own minds any clear idea of the demarcation between these three? If they have, they ought to have given them to the House before now.
I want to turn to another aspect of the question. We have been told in many speeches that one of the great objects of this so-called reform is that this House should be more free to consider foreign and Imperial affairs. That is very desirable, but there, again, up to now that case rests upon generalities. No hon. Member has told us exactly in what way we are to take part, for instance, in Imperial affairs. The greater part of our Empire is now self-governed. There are very few matters in relation to the government of the Empire, outside India and the Crown Colonies, in which this House is entitled to interfere in any way at all, and it would be very much resented if it did. So that apart from proposals for uniting the Empire and some new method of federation which may come along in the future, there really is nothing, so far as I can see, in regard to which this House is called upon to give very much of its time to the consideration of the affairs of the Dominions. With regard to foreign affairs I agree that it might be to our advantage if the House took more notice of them. But how much? What are the opportunities? You may have a set Debate on foreign affairs from time to time. You may have a reduction moved in a salary of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and have a general Debate on foreign affairs. There may be from time to time—no doubt there are—occasions when some diplomatic instrument might very usefully be criticised in this House. But it would be idle to suggest that the discussion and criticism of foreign affairs is a matter which need occupy so large a portion of the attention and time of the House that in order to procure that time it is necessary to make such a far-reaching change as is now proposed.
With regard to the second of the two propositions I mentioned as underlying this Resolution, I do not think, for the reasons I have endeavoured to give, that the slightest proof has been given that the time of this House is so very much overloaded that
it is incompetent to deal with its legitimate business, but assuming it has been proved, the next question is, is the method proposed in the Resolution not only the best but the only way of dealing with that difficulty? I regret that this Resolution is drawn in such narrow terms. If it had merely said that the time has come for the creation of subordinate Legislatures within the United Kingdom and to that end an Inquiry should be set up as to how it should be done, there would have been a great deal to say for it. But all methods are excluded by those who vote for this Resolution with one exception, because this Resolution provides for the appointment of a Parliamentary body to consider and report upon what?
A Parliamentary body to consider and report (1) upon a measure of Federal Devolution applicable to England, Scotland and Ireland.
Therefore, the only method which, according to this Resolution, is open for inquiry is the method of three subordinate Parliaments. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I think that is so. It is quite true that an Amendment was put down by one of my hon. Friends yesterday, but it was not moved, and no Amendment up to now has been moved. Whatever hon. Members may think, in my view if the Resolution were carried as it now stands, the only Inquiry possible would be the method by which you would set up these three subordinate Parliaments.
There are two alternative methods of relieving this House, neither of which would I myself advocate, but both of which I think are better than the one proposed. The first is this: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Long) concluded his speech yesterday by offering a pious hope that we have often, heard before, and that many of us share, that some day or other there may be a great super-Parliament, in which there may be representatives of the Dominions of the Crown overseas. I share that hope, though it is still rather a dream. But, if that is to be done, it will not and cannot, in my opinion, be done by relieving this House of some of its more local functions and then inviting representatives of the Dominions to sit in this House. If you are going to do anything of this sort at all, the proper thing to do is to maintain the present Parliament in its present position and with its present functions so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, and to erect a separate and distinct body, whether you call it a Parliament or an Imperial Council, or anything
else, not subordinate to this Parliament in the sense of the Resolution, but a separate Council or body charged with the consideration of Imperial matters, representatives, if you like, of the Dominions sitting in it, and also in charge of foreign affairs, matters connected with the government of India, and so forth. That is the true federal principle. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean), as I thought, inadequately explained some facts which he had in his mind with regard to the Dominions. There has never been an example of federation anywhere which operated by devolution. Every federal constitution in the world has been an attempt at greater centralisation and greater unity than previously existed. In Canada, Australia, South Africa, Germany, and the United States, it was because there had grown up in a haphazard way sovereign States which desired to draw together into a greater unity and greater centralisation and who were not willing to give up the whole of that sovereignty although that was done in the case of South Africa, and, as the next best thing, as they could not bring about an organic unity, they brought about a federal constitution. Federalism is always a drawing together towards unity. You are now trying to use the same method, not for centralisation but for disintegration. I do not say by any means that the fact that there is no precedent for it is a fatal objection, but as there has been no example of federalism brought about in that manner certainly it is rather illegitimate to call in aid examples of federalism elsewhere in the world for doing something in a totally different direction, and therefore, if you are going to do this at all, do it by the true federal principle, by conferring powers upon some federal Parliament which you may set up, which will be charged with the federal interests of the whole Empire and of foreign affairs.
But there is another way in which it might be done, which I also think is a better alternative. My hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinder) pointed out yesterday what is I think, profoundly true, that you never can get successful working federation in this country if you have a tremendous discrepancy in power, volume, population and wealth between the different units that form the federation. Therefore he suggested the division of England, the predominant party. Our British habit has
been to proceed by analogy from our own Constitution. If you want to get, as I think you must get, considerably smaller units than England, Ireland and Scotland, why not proceed upon the analogy of what is done when there has been congestion, in the Law Courts? When you find the business of the Courts is so overloaded that they cannot get through their work, you do not set up provisional Courts, you confer greater jurisdiction on the County Courts. You have an administrative council in every county in the country. If you want to get rid of some of the businesses of the House why not give legislative power to the county councils? Hon. Members smile at the suggestion. They are welcome to do that because we smile at theirs, and the smile is equal, but I shall be interested to hear why it is utterly ridiculous and absurd to give legislative powers to such bodies as the London County Council, or associations of county councils if you like, while it is perfectly natural in the opinion of some hon. Members to set up new legislative authorities for these different component parts of the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinder) pointed out the very real danger, if this Resolution were acted upon, of having two authorities existing side by side so nearly equal in power that you might find the authority of one insufficient to control the authority of the other. My hon. Friend gave some illustrations. He might have given an illustration which has often been mentioned and which is very relevant, because it introduces that side of this question which is concerned with Ireland. One of the main reasons why the Irish Parliament of the eighteenth century was done away with was because it was found by Mr. Pitt that on important questions, such as the Regency question for example, it took up an attitude at variance with that of this Parliament, and it was felt that the danger arising from a. conflict of attitude between the two Parliaments was a very great danger to the country as a whole, and especially at a time when war was going on. The same thing might and would happen in this country on all sorts of matters, and if we were at war the danger would be supreme if this Parliament was taking up one line and the English Parliament, to say nothing of the Scottish and the Irish, began passing Resolutions hostile to the policy of the Government. It would be a desperate and fatal danger, and although it
might not be so dangerous in connection with other matters than war, it would be certainly inconvenient and would be very likely to bring the Government of the country to an impasse altogether.
I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Sir D. Maclean) say this Resolution and the policy founded upon it, whatever else it might or might not do, would offer no solution whatever of the Irish question. But we should never have heard of it if it had not been that it was hoped that it might produce a solution of the Irish question. This is not a new policy. It is called by a new name but that is all. This Resolution is what a few years ago was known as Home Rule all round, and the only reason why Home Rule all round was ever heard of was because it was thought by the supporters of Irish Home Rule that it might be a way out of the difficulty, and that the strong objection which at that time was being taken, and is still taken, in this country to Irish Home Rule might to a certain extent be masked by a proposal for having the same thing all round. But the right hon. Gentleman and I agree that, at all events, that, is no solution to the Irish question to-day, and that is amply confirmed by the fact that throughout the Debate—a Debate on a Resolution which actually proposes to set up a Parliament in Ireland—not one of the Nationalist Members even thought it worth while to come into the House. It would have been inconceivable a few years ago, or even last year, that such a Motion should be put on the Paper and not a single Nationalist Member think it worth while to come to the House. We are all agreed—the Nationalists by staying away—that this offers no sort of solution to the Irish question.
But I do not think the matter ends there. Although it offers no solution to the Irish question, it still remains a policy which the outside public undoubtedly connect in their own mind with the old Irish controversy, and therefore I think this Resolution, ought to be taken very seriously. Even the subject of Home Rule for Ireland has never been accepted by the constituencies, with the possible partial exception of 1892, which was speedily and emphatically reversed a few years later. The policy of Home Rule all round has never been put before the constituencies, still less has it been accepted by them, and although, of course,
it is true that a question of this sort was not considered of any importance as an issue at the last election, nevertheless it is a fact that the present House of Commons consists of a majority of Members who call themselves members of the Unionist party. They were elected as Unionists; they bear the label of Unionists; they have been very much reproached in some quarters for having what was called the coupon of Unionists. But at all events, whether it is a label or a coupon, whether they like it or do not like it, it is attached to them not only by their opponents but by their friends and by the constituencies. I hope a House of Commons with such a majority, with such a label, and with such traditions, will not signalise the first three or four months of its existence by voting for a Resolution which, although it is easy to turn it aside by saying it is mere inquiry, will, nevertheless, be taken by the country outside as an admission by this House of Commons that it accepts the proposition that you must have subordinate Legislatures set up in this country. That is a Motion which no Unionist without very mature and careful thought ought to accept, and I earnestly hope that those who have been elected will bear in mind the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Kidd) yesterday, who said, I believe quite truly, that the majority in Scotland has no desire whatever for a policy of this sort, and I believe it is the same in England; and I most earnestly hope the present House of Commons will be very careful before it supports a Resolution of this kind, and, on the contrary, will show a large majority in the Lobby against it.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: In rising to address the House for the second time I hope I may be able to claim that I have not exhausted its indulgence, and that I may ask for a continuance of that indulgence. I wish to say a few words from the point of view of the Principality to which I belong. It is rather suggested in the phraseology of the Motion that Wales stands on a somewhat different footing in this connection from Ireland, Scotland and England. On the other hand, we hold that so far from that being the case that if anything our claim is an older one, a better defined one, and altogether from every point of view a stronger one than can be urged by any other part of the British Isles. It is quite true that in the past, particularly in
this House, we have not made our claim so pressingly and so vocally as has been the case with other sections. But I do not think that importunity or the power to use one's voice is always a synonym for one's desserts and the justice of one's cause. This Motion does not approach the problem along the best, the highest or the firmest grounds. I am not content to approach this very big question on the mere ground of expediency of administration and of governmental procedure.
From our point of view we would like to press this question on the impregnable and indefensible ground of the unquenchable nationality which exists not only among us, but among all the nationalities which comprise these islands. I am not at all content that this discussion should come to an end merely by arguing on the ground of expediency and of procedure in this He-use. If one may make an historical allusion, I think Shakespeare would be very much saddened if he knew that the power which he gave to Glendower to "call up spirits from the vasty deep" could be used to press an unwilling House of Commons not to work too hard those Members who happen to be sitting on so many Grand Committees. If this question is not approached in a bigger, a higher and more ancient spirit than has been urged several times in this Debate, I am afraid that the success of it will not be commensurate with the anticipations of many hon. Members. I know there are considerations applying to England which do not apply to Ireland, and perhaps do not apply to Scotland. It has been rather interesting to me as somewhat of an outsider to hear English Members using language and arguments which must be new even to their own ears. In the past we who live on the fringes of this country have had to listen to a great deal of bantering and sometimes worse on the part of English Members because of our supposed inveterate divisiveness, and we shall watch with something of interest and sympathy some of their incipient tortures at seeing the approaching dismemberment of their country.
The demand for Home Rule in Wales is not made for selfish reasons. We ask for it not only for the sake of the Principality itself, but also for the sake of the indirect good that would accrue to the British Isles and we hope the Empire from it. I think we have satisfied all the tests of self-determination, and that we have satisfied every postulate of representative govern-
ment in the past. We have made a united demand in this House and out of it for a large number of years, and I would ask then, what possible reason can there be for delaying the grant to us of self-government until the rest of the British Isles has been brought to a similar frame of mind? Surely nobody imagines that we have anything in the nature of an Ulster in the Principality. I do not think anyone would urge that we cannot manage our own affairs. The most prejudiced will admit that during the War we have made in more than one case a contribution of men who have given outstanding service to the Empire in its time of need, and I have no reason to believe that the stock has not been exhausted. Further than that, I do not think anybody would suggest that from our quarter there is any fear of ultimate separation. Anyone who travels that way will know that Off as Dyke has been levelled with the ground for a very long time, and I do not think in any scheme of reconstruction if is intended to rebuild it in the future.
The two main tendencies in the world at the moment are towards internationalism and nationalism. Some people may say that these tendencies arc inconsistent and incompatible, but I do not think they are. They are complementary. Internationalism, whether you look at it in the form of the League of Nations or the Socialist International, means, so far 'as I understand it, the establishment in all countries of a minimum standard of life, the establishment of a minimum wage, a maximum working week, and a minimum standard of comfort for all peoples. I do not imagine that internationalism in any form, from whatever quarter it emanates, seeks to weaken, and certainly not obliterate, in any way racial or nationalistic distinctions. The Peace Conference at Paris has set up the League of Nations, which is international, and has given its sanction to the creation and establishment of a very large number of entirely new nations on the Continent of Europe. The question of establishing shorter hours of labour, minimum conditions of comfort in all nations, may solve one problem, but it opens up another very vital problem, and it is this—the shorter you make the hours of work the longer you make the hours of leisure. It is quite easy to legislate and to say how long the working hours shall be and how much shall be paid, and what the conditions of life shall be. It is quite easy to stereotype these
things, and the iron necessities of our industrial system leave very little play for individuality. To me, a far greater problem is this—that as you diminish the hours of work and increase the hours of leisure, what provision are you going to make to help the people of the world in their various nationalities to employ their leisure hours to the best advantage of the community at large? Here is a great problem for the future, and to the extent that it is solved will be measured the quality and the value of the contribution that the different nationalities can make to the progress of real civilisation.
I am firmly of opinion that if we approach the question of Home Rule from this standpoint a little more frequently we shall come to the conclusion that the world will gain immeasurably by the intensive cultivation of all that is best and most distinctive in the life of any nationality, however small it may be. Devolution to us as a small people, has never meant a question of machinery and administration. I entirely repudiate that view, much as it was emphasised from the Front Bench opposite. To us it means the only possible way in which a nation can make its maximum contribution to the material and the spiritual necessities not only of itself, but of the great community of which it forms a part. The Government of the future will be more entirely than it has ever been before in the hands of the common people in every country. They have the political power in their hands, and they will exercise it progressively as time goes on. The future lies with those countries and those peoples, and, indeed, with that country which can produce the most enlightened, the most self-controlled, and, if I may use the phrase, the most uncommon common people. I would like to make a claim for my own countrymen in this connection. We have the materials and the conditions for giving to the world as fine, as rich, as complete an example of a pure democracy as this world has seen, at any rate since the days of ancient Greece.
Owing to historical causes, into which I need not enter, there is less class feeling in Wales than in any other country I have ever read of. I will not go into the historical causes, because that might involve a great many of the ancestors of many hon. Members in this House, but in days gone by, by a judicious mixture of Bolshevism and proselytism, they took care to destroy
the greater part of our upper classes, while another part was Anglicised, so that they no longer counted as of ourselves. The result has been that we went into the wilderness of neglect, ignorance, and superstition for a period of much more than forty years, and when the renaissance came it did not come from this House—much as this House was held up by an enthusiastic Englishman yesterday as a source of all that is good and lasting in these islands, but it came—and I say it with pride and without the slightest fear of contradiction from anyone who has taken the trouble to look at the records—in a curious and unique way from the common people themselves. All that we have to-day in the shape of education, religion, literature, and politics even, has found its inspiration from among the ranks of the common people, and all the great leaders whose names we revere and which are household words throughout the length and breadth of the Principality were and are men who started life in the lowest possible circumstances. Therefore, we may look forward to the future with hope, because we have already a civilisation that is very broad-based, and broad-based on the people's will in the best sense. The result is that there is a distinctive culture amongst the people which is not surpassed in these islands, and nowhere else that I know of. It is a culture which is symbolised by the peculiar traditions and institutions which are very dear to the hearts of all sections in our country. It is our cultural contribution to the life of the Empire.
Of late years a great deal of the odium which has attached to industrial unrest in our country has been due to the fact that agitators, who came very largely from outside, have come down amongst us because they found that there was a greater responsiveness to new ideas owing to this training than in any other part of the British Isles. We would like Home Rule in order that we may so put our industrial house in order, that we may deal with these, I will not say aliens, but these outsiders, who come to exploit and take advantage of the culture and responsiveness of our people—a culture which was never meant to be prostituted in this way. The other day there was an inquiry held into the best methods for the conservation of the resourses of this Empire. I would respectfully urge that in considering this very large question we should bear in mind that the very best pos-
sible resources of this Empire and of this country are contained in the distinctive. and highest characteristics that belong to the various constituent nationalities of the British Isles and of the Empire. These constituent nationalities, during the last five years, have given of their best blood and manhood in all the great theatres of war in the defence of civilisation, and all I ask now is that you should give them a chance, by the extension of self-government, for that self-development which would enable them to bring to the common treasury of the race a cultural contribution second to that of no other land.

Mr. F. C. THOMSON: I desire to say a few words from the point of view of Scotland. As a Unionist, I support this Motion whole-heartedly, because I think it points to a solution by way of conference that had the happiest results in the conference that preceded it and settled the many thorny questions which beset the franchise. That is of happy augury. If this most difficult problem that in the past aroused much hostility on one side or the other could be settled with a large measure of common agreement, it is surely by the method of conference, with people of extreme views on one side or the other, and with the great mass of the people holding & middle view, that this question would be solved more satisfactorily than by any other method I listened with much interest to the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division. As a new Member, I speak with some diffidence with regard to conditions in this House, but it seems to me that there is a great deal of pressure on the time of Members of this House. The hon. Member said that the House dealt with the question of general affairs, foreign affairs, and Imperial affairs, and asked what more was wanted. It seems to me, as the last speaker pointed out, that more and more the great mass of the people are taking an interest in these Imperial and foreign affairs, and we cannot carry on in this country unless we have the great mass of opinion behind us; and, therefore, questions such as India and Egypt ought to be debated in this House with much greater fullness and receive much more attention than they do.
Our system of government in these countries has a splendid record, but is capable of great improvement. We go on from stage to stage, and it is well that these things should be thrashed out fully, and the public instructed as far as possible.
This is of great importance, and would save us many blunders in the future. Our position is unique in history. We are a great democratic country, carrying on the government of an Empire of different races and creeds all the world over, and we want that our democracy should be as instructed as possible to follow what goes on; and it seems to me that in present conditions, when so much of the time of the House is taken up with domestic matters, that that is very difficult. A great deal has been said about foreign affairs, and the events of the last few years have shown that it is very dangerous indeed for a country like ours to relegate foreign affairs to an occasional discussion on the salary of the Foreign Ministers. I do not think that people will be satisfied with that in the future. As the Mover of the Motion pointed out yesterday, the people realise thoroughly now that foreign policy may land the country into a war. Therefore, they want to know exactly in what way the policy of the country is tending. In the days before the War we were content to leave that all alone. Then we found ourselves suddenly landed into this dreadful impasse, this dreadful struggle of the last four years. People now want to understand which way the country is governed. I think that if we had a well-informed public opinion, based on this House, and a general interest in these matters, the rather tragic failures to grasp the situation with regard to Eastern Europe, the position of Austria-Hungary, and as regards Germany, and other crucial questions on which the people were in the completest ignorance, might have been largely avoided, by a fuller interest in foreign affairs and more frequent opportunities of dealing with these questions and getting from Ministers what was the policy of the country, and whither it was tending. There was nothing of that, and there is a very great danger if we find ourselves in the future in a situation for which we were not prepared and for which we had in no way looked.
I was very much struck yesterday by the remarks of an hon. Member who pointed out, quite truly, that in the years before the War there was less interest taken in foreign questions than in Palmerston's time, and there was less interest in Palmerston's time than in the Napoleonic era; so that instead of having progressed in interest in this matter, we have gone back. We cannot have Parliament performing adequately its
great functions it that state of affairs continues. It is by the devolution of a largo amount of domestic business from this House that we shall come to a solution of our problem. The Mover of the Motion referred to the division of business which might result from the adoption of this proposal. Defence has always been appropriated to this House. Then he said, quite truly, that such matters as education and local government would fall probably to the different assemblies in other countries. He said also that industrial questions would be a matter for delegation. I myself strongly deprecate any delegation or devolution of industrial questions from this House. I think that this House—and I am sure the Labour Members will agree with this view—would require to keep a firm grip of these things. Education, local government, licences, and matter such as housing, which have been taking up all our time in this House or in the Committees, might well be dealt with in the different countries.
We have not at the present moment a fully unitary constitution. No one wants to go back on the Union of 1707, which, I think, was a very good thing for my country. My country has contributed her full share, and on the other hand has benefited from that Union. If I thought that this Motion in the slightest degree would lead to any such thing, I would oppose it absolutely. Anything that would set Scotland against England or England against Scotland would be a crime against both. But it is because this Motion has nothing whatever of that in its nature that I support it heartily. After 1907, for many years in the eighteenth century, we had a separate Scottish Secretary. That was given up for a long time, and Scottish affairs were carried on more or less under the supervision of the Home Office. But thirty years ago the Secretary ship of Scotland was instituted, and we have had an absolutely separate Scottish administration since. We have always had separate Education Acts. The Scottish system is different. The people are attached to it. Therefore it is not as if we had a completely unitary constitution and started to break it up, but we want to keep local Scottish matters to be dealt with by Scotland on Scottish soil, and in that view there is nothing in anyway contrary to the essentials of complete unity between England and Scotland. After all, it comes to this, that under the present system you have Scottish business
considered here or in Grand Committees, practically only by Scottish Members, as it is the Scottish Members who attend. In one sense practically Scottish Members are regulating Scottish affairs, but I maintain that you are asking the same set of individuals to do two things. You are asking them to take their part in Imperial questions, and at the same time to deal with these local matters which can be dealt with better by another set of men in the country concerned. If that were done the saving of time to the Imperial Parliament would be immense.

Sir F. BANBURY: Are you sure that we would do any good with the time if it was saved?

Mr. THOMSON: I am hopeful that the time which is spent here is of some benefit. This Motion is one which promises great benefit, and I would like to see it passed by a large majority. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) spoke last night about the great advance made in Scotland in recent years and the education that is given there up to the age of eighteen, and asked, "Are you going to shut up in Scotland these young Scotsmen who have been afforded such great opportunities? Are you going to parochialise them?" I answer, "Not for one moment." If I thought it meant anything of the kind I would not support the Motion. But it seems to me that while preserving an absolutely full union certain local matters with regard to Scotland can be dealt with better on Scottish soil, and for that reason I support the Motion.

Mr. CLYNES: Those who brought this Motion before the House must be gratified by the degree of support which it has received from all quarters, and I take this opportunity of associating the Labour Members of the House with the terms of the Resolution. There are many aspects of it which cannot be disintegrated in Debate and which could be more fittingly handed over to the Parliamentary body referred to in this Motion which it is suggested should be appointed by the Government. A great many of the best pieces of legislation during the period of the War resulted from Reports that became the subject of almost unanimous agreement on the part of Members of the House delegated to report on highly controversial questions. Perhaps the greatest instance of severance which we have was that which resulted in the almost unanimous passing by this House of the Reform Act. Mem-
bers will recall how highly controversial, almost to the point of total inability to secure anything like a measure of agreement, were many of those points which afterwards did become the subject of agreement when dealt with by practically such a body as that which is suggested in this Motion should be appointed to deal with this question of devolution. I, therefore, want to leave to that body, if it be appointed, the discussion and due consideration of these points of detail, and meantime to adduce a few principal reasons for supporting this Motion. With the great growth in the population of the country there has been an even greater growth in the number of questions and the variety of interests which this House has had to take into consideration, and although periodically in the Press we sue something to the effect that this House is losing its influence and that the country is paying little regard to what it does, any such loss, if it has ever been apparent, has not been real, and the House can very soon recover any loss which it might temporarily have suffered.
This House is the great Court of Appeal for all questions that matter very greatly to the masses of the community, but the increase in the number and variety of questions has proved to the average Member of this House that it is physically impossible for even the strongest men to keep pace with the weekly growth of subjects. We have a very inquisitive public, altered in many respects in relation to Parliamentary matters. This House cannot go on generation after generation increasing the authority of the people in relation to politics and matters of government without finding a corresponding increase in the general weight and burden of the work which Parliament has to perform. Millions of people now have votes who formerly had not got them. Votes tend to produce grievances, so that now we find large masses of people sending to us deputations or a very large number of letters daily on questions which formerly they would not trouble to bring before the notice of their Member of Parliament. There has been, for instance, an enormous change in the relation of labour to the Government and to very many Government Departments. Look at what is the work in its degree and in its importance which the Board of Trade has to perform now in relation to labour—work which it never had to perform before. I speak of
labour not in its narrow sense of the manual worker, but in its broader aspect in relation to the general industry and commercial activity of the community. Trade and commerce and business have grown so much and have become so varied and complex that the attitude of those engaged in those interests towards Parliament has altered very much. In other words, the things which ten or twenty years ago were regarded as the private affair of the individual workman or association of workmen, or of individual employers—the private concerns that they settled amongst themselves until a few years ago—have in recent years become a matter of public importance, lifted to the level of some sort of Parliamentary action and brought before this House in one form or another. We have had even to establish a Labour Ministry. The Board of Trade undoubtedly was overburdened. It dealt in a more or less haphazard way with certain duties which it was realised should be rearranged and apportioned to some more appropriate body. The Labour Ministry was, therefore, established. Other Ministries have also been called into existence recently. We shall have to deal for a very long time with questions affecting hundreds of thousands of our people, who have been put upon the list for pensions and allowances as a result of the War. We have, not absolutely settled yet how far the State should be responsible for some control of the continued supply of the food of the people—a question which is not unimportant.
One need not recite these several features of growth. It is because of this growth that Members of the Commons arts almost exhausted by the variety and complexity of the political and Parliamentary questions which they have to deal with. I am sure that we are not less eager than before to carry any share of the Parliamentary burden which within reason can be borne, but Members of this House who are devoted to their duty, and who are trying to serve their constituents, find it almost impossible to conform to the minimum requirements of Parliamentary service, not to say the maximum. It means spending a good portion of the day in the handling of correspondence, in personal interviews and discussion with those who have to convey information, or who may want it. It means that you must attend Committees, and I do not mean merely the Committees upstairs, those large and
responsible bodies recently created. There are scores of other Committees on which Members must act, and which must take up considerable time if they are properly to understand the questions which have to be discussed finally in general terms and settled in this House. It has therefore become a necessity to delegate to others, if we can the transaction of much of the business which is now brought before this Imperial Parliament. I think that every Member every day must be struck with the inappropriate-ness of some of the questions which at times we are compelled to put on the Order Paper. To bring before a national and Imperial Chamber such a large number of the little, local, personal questions which fill the Order Paper day by day and which we are compelled to bring before the notice of Ministers, is, I think, an abuse of the time of Parliament and a real source of waste in regard to the time of responsible Ministers.
We have had during the course of the later stages of the War, and since it was ended, frequent appeals for retrenchment and economy in matters of finance, and yet the House finds itself at times in the position of voting away millions of money in a minute, to a great extent because it has not been able, on account of the pressure of other business, to give the days of time which ought to be given to these great questions of national expenditure. There are other causes for the easy way in which we at times vote large sums of money, but if Members could feel that in addition to having a nominal responsibility in regard to national expenditure they actually had a full margin of time in which to express that responsibility, in which fully to enter into the details of expenditure—if they had that feeling without the consciousness that they were incurring the displeasure of the Government in taking up time, I am sure that many economies could be effected. It is undoubtedly true that we very often have to press Government Departments to spend. I am not arguing that all expenditure is uneconomical or that it is wasteful. We cannot have great tasks undertaken and completed without a very considerable charge, but I am satisfied that if the House generally had many more days each Session for consideration of these questions of finance, our sense of responsibility in regard to wastage and economy would find expression in some considerable
saving of money. Therefore, I think we ought at least to agree to the proposal of the Motion and charge the body there in referred to with the duty of considering and reporting upon the three or four specific lines of duty mentioned. In so doing we could have at least the consolation that we are tending towards the placing of business and authority in the hands of those who understand certain local questions far better than we do. I am sure it is to the advantage of decisions that they should be reached by those who best know the matters to be settled. We found during the War that our many local authorities showed themselves patriotically ready to shoulder very many burdens, to carry them without pay or reward, meeting their own expenses very frequently, as many councillors and other heads of municipalities had to do. But the powers of these bodies were limited. They frequently had to come here at very great cost to ask us for permission to do that which ought never to have been questioned on the part of this House. It would save them a considerable amount of time and money if their powers could be enlarged and if they could have authority generally in matters of local life and local government.
This Motion tends not merely in the direction of economy. It tends in the direction of efficiency in government, in, that it would enable those whose powers are now limited to have enlarged powers and to settle better than we can the things that they understand better than we understand them, while it would leave to us as an Imperial Parliament a wider margin of time to look after those greater affairs of Empire and world politics than we have an opportunity of doing on the existing basis

Mr. LINDSAY: I have been in this House for nearly two years and have never ventured to address it before. I am not now very certain about my powers of speaking, and I ask, therefore, that the House will extend to me an even greater measure of toleration than is usually shown in such cases. The reason I have intervened is that I have studied this question of federalism for nearly twenty years. I have been struck with the extraordinary view expressed by supporters of the Motion, who seem to assume that there was something superior in federalism because various great countries, notably the United States, had adopted a federal system. To my
my mind that impression is an illusion. Washington at first was regarded as a sort of clearing house on small questions which arose between the different sovereign States. So strong was the idea that those States still retained sovereign powers that it is on record that when Thomas Jefferson was President and visiting a particular State, he insisted on its Governor taking precedence in that State. Anyone who compares the conditions which prevailed at that time with those of the present day will see that the United States has travelled a long way since then, and that the Federal system has followed, as several hon. Members have pointed out the natural Jaw of tending towards the increase of powers of the Central Government. It is the natural law for this reason, that the Federal or Central Government will attract all the best men who go into politics, assuming that good men go into politics at all. The Central Government in every federation has always increased its powers at the expense of the various subsidiary Governments. That has been effected in the United States, not only by Amendments to the Constitution, but also by interpretation of the Constitution. Washington has increased its powers immensely, whilst the powers of the various States have diminished. It is only seven years ago since a Constitutional Amendment was passed which gave the Federal Government power to impose an Income Tax, and it is only within the last few months a. Constitutional Amendment has been made to take away from each State the complete control of the liquor traffic, with the result that the United States is in the happy position of becoming permanently dry. The same thing took place in Australia. Centralisation came gradually, and it took twenty years of constant effort on the part of those anxious to give it effect. It is proposed that we should do the opposite here, and I think that hon. Members who supported devolution should take those well-known cases into consideration.
The hon. and gallant Member who moved this Resolution alluded to one very well-known difficulty, and that is as to what are central or federal powers and what are local He did not attempt and could not, of course, give any description or definition under which class any particular power should be. I took the trouble, after listening to him, to analyse to-day's Order Paper as regards questions. There are 156 questions, and of those 102 seem
to me to be federal, twenty-two local, and thirty-two doubtful, so that if my analysis is correct the adoption of this form of devolution would not relieve this House in respect of questions. In order to deal with the surplus of business what machinery is to be substituted? It seems to me that in a federal scheme the Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the War Office, the India Office, the Admiralty, the Treasury, the administration of the Post Office, the Pensions Ministry, the Board of Trade, and possibly the Ministry of Labour would come under the federal portion, while the following Departments might be local: the Home Office, the Local Government Board, the Irish Office, the Scottish Office, the Board of Education, and possibly the Board of Agriculture. Thus we have got a vast number of most important Departments obviously federal, and only six at most of the other Departments which would be State Departments. If the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder) were adopted, we would have seven different Legislatures, that is three in England, one in Wales, one in Scotland, and two in Ireland. That means that we are going to have seven Governors or Lieut.-Governors of States, seven Prime Ministers, seven Home Secretaries and all the rest, and seven Speakers and seven Deputy-Speakers. It would also mean the setting up of vast administration. We hear complaints now about the number of officials and I do not think this proposal would have the effect of reducing them. Possibly we might also have seven Presidents of Senates. I presume in each Lower House there would be a hundred members—as at present the London County Council has over that number—and then in the Upper House there would probably be fifty members. That would mean that we would possibly have over a thousand members of the State Legislatures, and probably they would desire to be paid as much as we are here. If we are going to have a system of rural and urban councils, county councils, State Legislatures and then the Imperial Parliament, I think by the time people have paid the various rates and taxes they will not have very much left for amusement.
There is also the question of cost. I am extremely sorry that great financial expert the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) is not here to-day to give us his opinion on this aspect of
the question, but I understand he is fulfilling a pressing engagement in another place. I have no doubt that he or some others will be able to tell us something as to the financial cost. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting referred to the local questions that engage the attention of the House. I would ask hon. Members to look at Questions 76, 77, and 78 on to-day's Order Paper, which stand in the names of two Members of the Labour party. Question No. 76 asks the Secretary of State for War about a private in the Royal Scots, No. 43976, and No. 77 about a private in the Scottish Rifles, No. 14244 and No. 78 is a similar question. If the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues acted in the way they are doing now those little local matters would still come here, as the Secretary for War would be a federal official under the scheme. If such questions are out of place in this Assembly, how much more would they be out of place in this great body which might be set up under this scheme? I think the House ought to congratulate me on the fact that, although I am an Ulster Member, I have not, so far, mentioned the question of Ireland, but yet I feel that I cannot sit down without saying a few words about Ireland. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles said, and that is, whether you take this scheme or leave it, it will have absolutely nothing to do with settling the Irish question, and if hon. Members vote on this matter with the idea that it will have the slightest influence on what is going on in Ireland, they are absolutely and completely mistaken.

6.0 P.M.

Sir FREDERICK YOUNG: I think that the subject-matter of this Debate is well worthy of the time that has been given to it. In common with so many other speakers, I, as a new Member, have felt oppressed by the difficulty which we all must feel in giving anything like adequate attention to the very many matters which come before this Parliament, and I think it is very proper that we should see if there is any remedy for what is not only an evil, but what is likely to become a growing evil. The suggestion of the establishment of a federal system will not, no doubt, bring about all the good results which some of the speakers forecast, but I think it must in some measure help to alleviate the position in which we find ourselves At any rate, the alternative, so
far as I can gather from the Debate, is to continue or drift on in the position which has been outlined by many hon. Members. I think that alternative is one which we cannot face with equanimity, and that any other alternative such as that contained in this proposal is worthy of the closest investigation and consideration. A great deal has been said on this occasion and in other Debates as to loss of prestige concerning this House. I think if this House is suffering from loss of prestige it is very largely owing to utterances made by Members of the House itself, and I have noticed frequently this Session it has almost seemed the purpose of hon. Members to depreciate the House and its prestige in their remarks, always deploring the fact in their statement that the prestige is being lowered, and it seems to me that if they would say less themselves that which they deplore would be less obvious.
I am very interested in this question, because I was born and have spent all my life in a country which has federalised, and that is Australia. The difficulties of federation there were very much the same as those which arose in connection with federation in America, but those difficulties do not oppress me in connection with the subject in this country. To produce a federal system here ought to be infinitely easier than it was in Australia. You start from a central Government which is able to establish a federal system without any compromise or any agreement. In Australia, on the other hand, you had six States, all with their semi-sovereign rights, and very naturally each of those States was very loath, or at least those who were in public positions were very loath, to surrender those sovereign rights to any considerable extent. That does not apply to people as a whole who are more or less indifferent to the question of sovereign rights, but those in authority at the head of affairs, very naturally and very humanly, value those sovereign rights considerably. Not only did you have that feeling, but you had amongst a number of States which had been in existence for half a century or more considerable jealousies, which were very noticeable among one or two of the Australian States, and those jealousies had to be overcome. It is not surprising that it took something like twenty years before a system of federation, which was on the whole a very successful agreement, could
be arrived at. But whilst that system on the whole is a very satisfactory one, it bears upon the face of it many defects arising from the fact that there were State jealousies and also that the State authorities were loath to give up sovereign rights. Those two difficulties are in the one case absolutely absent, and in the other case not in any degree so noticeable in the United Kingdom, and, therefore, I feel that, whilst the difficulties might warn hon. Members that the task of forming a federal system is considerable, they need not be oppressed by it.
It has been asserted that all the existing federal systems are evidence of a tendency to central government, but they are evidence of something further. They evidence this fact, that people living in given localities were not willing to surrender all self-government, and, subject to small defects arising out of existing conditions, I think that federal systems, as regards large countries, either in area or population, represent the happiest system of government—that is, government as regards the most important and Imperial matters by a central Government, and government of minor and domestic affairs by local and domestic Governments. The same arguments which induced the various States in America and Australia to reserve to themselves a certain measure of local government are equally good arguments why in this country we should investigate the question whether we should not establish local Governments here to deal with local and domestic affairs. The same argument applies equally, although the operations are the reverse. In any federal system I think that experience shows that in addition to giving the central Parliament the oversight of all great Imperial and foreign questions, it is of the utmost importance that that central Parliament should have within its sphere all questions upon which uniform legislation is desirable, and a great deal may be learnt in that direction by studying the result of the other federal' systems of the world. In Australia, owing to the factors I have mentioned, the central Government undoubtedly has not the control of some matters which require uniform legislation owing to State jealousies, and the result is that our federal system there suffers a considerable disadvantage, and there has been a continuous campaign for many years now to strengthen the central Government and to that extent to weaken the
local Governments. There have been bitter controversies on the subject, and it has fallen to my lot to resist, as a matter of fact, the effort to increase the strength of the central Government, but not because I did not appreciate the points I have mentioned, and in particular that the central Government should have full control of those matters requiring uniform legislation throughout the length and breadth of the given Dominion or Empire. But the opposition of myself and many others was due to the fact that those who were aiming to create a stronger central Government were endeavouring to carry a great deal more, and for political reasons rather than for true State reasons.
If I may instance a matter where the Australian system fails, and to illustrate the necessity of powers which will enable the central Government to deal uniformly on certain matters, I would refer to the question of industrial affairs, which, I think, must of necessity be under the control of the central Government. Under the Australian system the compromise, which is unfortunate, is something like this: Each State controls the industrial affairs which are strictly within its borders. That is, if a strike occurs in any one State, that State alone has the control of that strike, and can legislate in respect of it. The central Parliament can only intervene where a strike passes from one State to another, so that it is existent in at least two States out of the six. The result of that has been that where a strike has arisen very naturally out of some industrial grievance in one State, it has been the policy of the trade unions and labour councils there to work up an artificial strike in another State, so as to bring in the federal right of intervention, and the purpose of doing that was that they felt that they had a better chance of getting their grievances remedied from what they considered a more favourable judge presiding over the Federal Court than they were likely to get out of the judge who presided over the State Court. So that, by dividing up the industrial sphere, instead of bringing about peace and harmony in industrial matters, exactly the opposite result has come about Apart from this, I think advantage may be derived from some form of federation in this country from the fact that it would split up the administration and bring a good deal of the administration and the bureaucratic government more in touch with the individuals of the country, and the administrative offices
would be more amenable to the public, and I think would attend to their affairs with more speed and with more regard for the individuals concerned, who at the present time, almost equally with members, feel pretty hopeless as regards many things that happen in administration.
It has been suggested that this question of federation will not be a solution of the Irish question. I think it is well worthy of consideration quite apart from that, but at the same time I think that it may tend towards that solution. It has been said during the Debate that any Member who is a Unionist could hardly support this proposal, but I look upon that as not having any foundation. I think that one can be a Unionist, as I am, and yet support this Resolution, because I do not think that federation means disunion. As a matter of fact, I hope the effect of it may be greater unity, and for that reason I have no fear as a Unionist in supporting the proposal, that this matter should have full consideration by this House or by any committee which is established. As regards Ireland, I often think that there arc very few people who know anything about the question. I do not pretend to. I know that Australia, where they pass Resolutions quite frequently on the subject, know nothing about it, and I am equally confident that the people in America know nothing about it, and, what is stranger still. I do not think the people here know much about it. I do not think the Irish people themselves know what they want, and I do not think the English people know what they want to give them, and the whole thing has been such a political cry for the last generation that the mind is bemused, and we have got very few concrete ideas on the subject. I rather incline to the view that if a system of federation were established, with due regard to the two very distinct parts of Ireland, and if there was a fair system of local government in purely domestic and minor matters, the great body of people in England and Scotland would say they had finished with the Irish question, that the Irish had got all that anybody could ask for, and that there could come up no Irish question which could be supported by agitation to the extent that it has been in the past. I think some form of federation, whilst it might not actually settle the question, would satisfy a great many people that there is very little left on the part of the Irish people to agitate about
and very little left for those in other parts of the world who take an interest in Ireland to found their case upon for intervening in the affairs of the United Kingdom.

Mr. MARRIOTT: This Debate has been so very largely sustained by Members from other parts of the United Kingdom—from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales—that I feel that a mere Englishman has hardly any right at all to intervene. Still, I hope before the Debate closes I may be allowed to put before the House a few observations arising out of a very long study of this particular question. There is one point on which, I think, there is agreement, curiously enough, in all quarters of the House. I do not think anybody will deny, whatever he may think of the merits of the Motion, that it is one of the very highest constitutional significance. The terms of the Motion have obviously been thought out with very great precision, though, if I may say so, I do not think the terms of the Motion are altogether felicitous or free from ambiguity. May I, even at this stage of the Debate, attempt to remind the House what is the object at which this proposition aims? It is, according to the terms of the Motion, to enable the Imperial Parliament to devote more attention, on the one hand, to the general interests of the United Kingdom, and, on the other hand, to matters of Imperial concern. What is the method by which this object is to be attained? It is to be attained by what is described—I think very infelicitously—as "federal devolution"—that is to say, the creation of several subordinate legislatures within the United Kingdom. Then the Motion is curiously and, as it seems to me, very gratuitously complicated by the insertion of the phrase "without prejudice to any proposals" for the settlement of Irish Government.
Leaving altogether aside criticism of the form of the Motion, let me address to the House a few words in criticism of its substance. The case for this Motion seems to me to rest upon one main proposition, namely, that the Imperial Parliament, as at present constituted, is not adequate to the fulfilment of the duties imposed upon it. What; are those duties? They are, in the first place, taxative. This House is the guardian—as I and others often think, a very careless and negligent guardian—of the public purse, but I suppose we shall
hear a little more about that later this evening. Secondly, it is legislative; in the third place, deliberative; and, fourthly, this House is charged with the very important duty of attempting to control, if it can, the Executive Government. I invite the attention of the House to this point. Of those four functions, the first—the taxative function—applies only to the United Kingdom. The other three functions—the legislative, the deliberative, and the control of the executive—apply, in the first place, to the United Kingdom, in the second place, to the whole Empire—for this House is the only Legislative Assembly which can legislate for the Empire as a whole; we must never forget that—and, finally, this House has also to deal with these three separate functions for each of the three constituent parts of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, and Ireland. Those who propose and those who support this Motion declare that these functions are not at present adequately performed. First, as regards the Empire. May I venture to quote the words of a very influential evening paper which appeared on the evening of, or the day after, the Debate which took place in this House on the Indian Budget? The words were these:
The House of Commons, to judge from its appearance when the Secretary of State addressed it, considers the affairs of India to belong to the category of unhappy, far-off things, which are beyond its comprehension.
I think that, under the circumstances, that is a very ungenerous comment on the proceedings of this House on that particular evening—a most ungenerous comment, because the writer of these words ought to have been perfectly aware that at the moment when that Indian Debate was taking place, there were, I think, five or six Grand Committees sitting upstairs, and a number of Select Committees sitting as well. But I merely quote the comment to show that this House finds it, at any rate, difficult to perform its functions as an Imperial Assembly. During these last few months—this is known, I suppose, to every Member of the House—there have been a large number of soldiers and others from our Overseas Dominions, and I tell the House, what it already knows, that those visitors from overseas have not been at all favourably impressed with the proceedings in this House. They came here supposing that this House was really an Imperial Parliament, and they find it for the most part either neglecting, as they imagine, that particular function, as on the occasion to which I referred, for very
good reasons, or immersed in what they regard as parochial and purely local business. I say it without fear of contradiction that, from the Imperial point of view the proceedings of this House do not impress those who come from the more distant parts of the Empire, and that, from the point of view of the Imperial Parliament, is a very serious allegation to-be brought against it.
But, quite apart from particular incidents and from special occasions, such as the one to which I have referred, I do not think it can be maintained that, from the point of view of the position of this House as an Imperial Legislature, or an Imperial deliberative Assembly, it is at present in a position to do its work properly. Then, as to the United Kingdom: we are trying during the present Session a very great experiment of devolution on the spot—of devolution to Grand Committees. I sometimes wonder whether the Members of this House realise the extent of that experiment. I asked the Leader of the House a few days ago whether the Government expected Members of this House to be in two, if not three, places at once, and he replied that the Government had no such expectation. If the Government does not expect a physical, if not a psychical, impossibility, the distribution of business clearly contemplates it, for I made a calculation the other day, and found that, out of the 700 Members in this House, you cannot count on more than 480 at the outside of what I may call ordinary, private working Members. We have to deduct seventy Members who are elected for Irish constituencies but do not sit. We have to deduct about 100 Ministers and their satellites or Parliamentary Secretaries. We have to deduct, say, another 10 per cent, for unavoidable casualties, and occasions such as to day, and that leaves not more than 480 working Members including all the lawyers, all the business men and the other Members of this House. I had the curiosity the other day to turn up 1he numbers of these Grand Committees, and making no allowance for duplication, I find that there are no less than 427 members on those Grand Committees at the present time—427 out of 480. In addition to that, there are 225 Members—again not allowing for duplication—at the present moment serving on Select Committees. I say without hesitation, that if these Grand Committees are going to be regularly worked at the pace they have been worked
during the first few months of this Session, then the rest of the work of the House cannot possibly be adequately done.
May I next say a word or two about the method of reform—leaving the case for reform—adumbrated in the Resolution before the House; but, before doing so, may I notice in two or three words a rather curious contradiction of fact? If you consult the regular text books on these questions, you find that the Constitution of the United Kingdom is invariably described—and perfectly accurately described—as a unitary Constitution. But look at the matter from the point of view, not of constitutional theory, but of political practice. For this analysis I rely on a very learned and illuminating paper read to the British Association a few years ago by an ex-Home Secretary—my friend Mr. Herbert Samuel. There is a very great deal more of what is loosely called federalism in the working of the United Kingdom at present than is commonly supposed. Take the judicial system. England, Scotland, Ireland, already each has its own separate judicial system, its separate staff of judges, and, for the most part, its separate law officers. The only link between the several parts of the United Kingdom in respect of judicature is the Supreme Appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. Then, leaving the Judicature on one side, take the Legislature. It will be said that that, at any rate, is a unitary body. If the Legislature itself is a unitary body, the resulting legislation is not. I take the first ten years of the present century. During those ten years there were 458 public Acts passed in this House. Of those 458 public Acts, only 252 were uniformly applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom. The Legislature may be unitary; the resulting legislation is not.
Then as to the Executive The Cabinet system is, I suppose, no longer in existence, although I hear it is to be reconstituted. But before the War we had a Cabinet. Of that Cabinet of some twenty members, there were fifteen members dealing with home affairs, leaving the Foreign Secretary and Colonial Secretary on one side, and of those fifteen members, only four exercised their administrative powers uniformly in each of the three parts of the United Kingdom. Those four were the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade and the Postmaster-
General, and of those four, only one—the Postmaster-General—included in the ambit of his jurisdiction the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Of the rest, the Local Government Board is, of course, exclusively English, and also the Education Board and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Board of Agriculture is exclusively an English Board in regard to everything except the diseases of animals. Diseased animals appear to be common to all parts of the United Kingdom, but that is only part of the jurisdiction of the Board of Agriculture. Then take the Home Secretary: he is in a curiously anomalous position. In regard to the judicial side of his functions, his prisons, and so on, he is exclusively an English officer. In regard to the industrial side of his functions, aliens, and so on, he is an officer of the United Kingdom. Well, then, can it be said, in view of these facts, which will not, I think, be controverted—they cannot be—that our present system is really and essentially a unitary system. Let me pass, if I may, to the change contemplated by this Motion. I would ask hon. Members to observe precisely what is suggested. It is suggested that the Imperial Parliament is to retain two functions. Here is a point where I am somewhat critical of the Motion. It is to be at once the Imperial Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I submit that this is at once illogical in theory and inconvenient in practice.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: I do not think that is so.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Well, it is a matter of opinion, but 1 think so. My right hon. Friend will have an opportunity of contradicting me, but I think the terms of the Motion are quite clear in that respect—
That, with a view to enabling the Imperial Parliament to devote more attention to the general interests of the United Kingdom, and—
Note this:
to matters of common Imperial concern.
What does that mean? The right hon. Gentleman opposite dissents. But these are the terms of the Motion. I do not think I am misinterpreting their meaning. Unless I am mistaken that means that there is to be retained in this one legislative and deliberative body the affairs of the United Kingdom—according to the Motion—and matters of common Imperial concern. That is to say: it is to be at once, or to remain, the Imperial
Parliament—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, very well, but also a Parliament for the whole of the" United Kingdom I submit that that is both illogical and inconvenient in practice. Illogical for this reason: We have lately seen—and I rejoice to have seen it—a bifurcation of the executive sphere of the Imperial Parliament. We have lately developed—and I rejoice we have developed—a real executive for the Empire as a whole, the Imperial War Cabinet. I hope that that institution will take its place amongst the permanent constitutional institutions of the Empire. You have bifurcated your executive. I ask whether you contemplate, whether this Motion contemplates, a corresponding bifurcation of the Legislature? This Motion in itself does not; it contemplates leaving matters as they are at present, that is, that there shall be one body of men elected exclusively by the electors of the United Kingdom controlling the bifurcated executive, controlling the two executives. To make the Imperial constitution logical and complete, you want, on the one hand, to have a real Imperial Parliament, and on the other a Parliament for the United Kingdom which shall be co-ordinate in authority with the Dominion Parliaments. You want, as contemplated in this Motion, your subordinate provincial legislative bodies for such provincial units as wisdom may dictate. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for one of the Divisions of Belfast in thinking that wisdom will not make those units necessarily coincide with the nationalities of what used to be known as the Celtic fringe. I suppose, however, the supporters of this Motion will say, "Well, do not go too fast; one step at a time." [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] But you are, I submit, confusing the issue which you are putting before the House to-day. You are confusing the issue by binding into a single phrase the two inconsistent ideas of federalism and devolution.
If you had proposed this as a measure of devolution and left your federal idea on one side, I should have had far less objection to the terms in which the Motion is framed. I object to this hyphenated phrase, not at all on the ground of mere black letter pedantry, but on the ground of utilitarian convenience, and above all on the ground which I think in phrases of this kind is important, of lucidity of thought. For whether you look at political theory or
historical precedent, federalism, as has been pointed out again and again in this Debate, has, with one exception, invariably been a movement towards closer union. That is the essential characteristic of the federal idea and the federal movement throughout the world. You have it, of course, in the ease of the United States of America. You had it in the case of Australia. You had it in. the case of the Empire of Germany. You had it in the case of the miscalled Federal Union of South Africa. In all these cases it was a coming together. The only apparent exception to that rule is the great Dominion of Canada. Some hon. Member this afternoon included Canada in that generalisation. But that, I think, is a very doubtful point. Allowing, however, that Canada is an exception, it is an exception more apparent than real. It was, I admit, a centrifugal movement as regards Ontario and Quebec: it was a centripetal movement as regards the other provinces in that great Dominion.
The intellectual confusion to which I have referred as involved in the terms of the original Motion has brought into very striking relief the terms of the Amendment which was upon the Paper but which has not, as a matter of fact, been moved. That Amendment was referred to by the hon. Gentleman for one of the Glasgow Divisions, who, in his brilliant speech yesterday, referred to the predominance of one partner in the federation. What is the federation to winch reference is made? Is it a federated United Kingdom, or is it a federated Empire, or is it both? Do you want your heptarchy in order to equate your Wessex or your Mercia with Scotland or with Canada; with Canada or with Alberta; with Australia, or with New South Wales? We want above all clear thinking on a question of this kind. Or is there behind this heptarchy proposal another motive which is not so ostentatiously avowed? Is the proposal made in reference to England to render the federal solution more acceptable to Ireland? As I listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast I hoped that that might be the case. Speaking myself as a perfectly convinced, unrepentant Unionist, believing profoundly in the necessity for maintaining the legislative union unimpaired, I say frankly I can see nothing in this proposal for devolution which is not absolutely and entirely consistent with the maintenance of the legislative union, and. indeed, that was
frankly avowed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast himself. I think of all declarations that have been made in this Debate his was the most significant and important in this regard.
This Motion, however, as I understand it, is not put forward primarily in the interests of Ireland, or Scotland, or Wales, or any other single part of the United Kingdom. It is put forward, I believe, in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the Empire as a whole. I believe that the acceptance of the devolutionary principle would conduce very greatly both to the better government of the United Kingdom and also to the closer unity of the British Commonwealth. But just at the moment I would frankly confess there is one other point that appeals to me in favour of this Motion more strongly—and it is the last word I have to address to the House. It is this: I am profoundly convinced that at this moment throughout the Western world, indeed throughout the whole world, and not least in our own country, the whole principle of representative democracy or Parliamentary government is on its trial. I am absolutely certain that the whole principle of Parliamentary government—and I would beseech hon. Members to regard this matter very seriously—is really threatened from a good many quarters. Of those quarters by far the most menacing at the moment is the demand for localised or direct democracy, or what I venture to call political syndicalism or Soviet Government. That menace is, I am certain, very much less remote than a good many people are aware of and if I were not detaining the House too long—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."]—No, I have already spoken long enough—I should very much like to develop this point in some detail. Here I will only say this one word. Whatever substance there may be in the demand for a form of direct democracy—we all know what that means—it consists very largely in this: That people are looking to this Imperial Parliament for more than the Imperial Parliament can at the moment physically give them. Failing to get what they want from the Imperial Parliament they are turning in disappointment, some of them in disgust, to other methods. It is because I realise that this is a danger confronting and menacing, at this moment as I believe, the whole principle of Parliamentary government and representative democracy in the
form in which we in this country have evolved it during the last 300 years, that I, at any rate, intend to go into the Lobby in support of the Resolution.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: The only criticism to which I need refer of the hon. Member upon the Motion is based upon the view that we have to deal with the whole question of Imperial Federation at the same time as we are dealing with the question of devolution in the United Kingdom. The Motion and the speeches developed upon it suffer somewhat from the want of a term to describe the Parliament of the United Kingdom as distinct from any future Parliament that might be set up to be called the Imperial Parliament. For the time being we speak of the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the Imperial Parliament, and the Parliaments which are suggested for the various parts of the United Kingdom as the local or national Parliaments. We have not a phrase which quite describes the Imperial Parliament as distinct from the present Imperial Parliament of the United Kingdom. This Motion and this Committee are not intended to deal with the question of Imperial Federation, but with devolution for the United Kingdom, and for that purpose, roughly speaking, the Imperial Parliament, because it is the only Imperial Parliament we have got. Although the hon. Member who has just sat down criticised this point, we are really at one in what we are thinking about.
I would like to say a word about the criticism offered by the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. R. McNeill), because he challenged the fundamental position that there is any case for devolution. He asked is there such congestion as has been alluded to, and he challenges that, and says we have no evidence of it. I do not know what evidence he wants. We have seventy years of the testimony of the leading statesmen of the country one after another pointing out the position into which we were drifting. We have the testimony of continual Committees being appointed to consider the difficulty in which the House was finding itself Session by Session, and we have had proposals by the Government to so adjust the procedure of this House that it might, if possible, grapple with the burden which was upon it. It seems to me that is all the evidence you need.
I do not want to base the case for this Motion upon war conditions, because everybody knows that at the end of every
Session before the War we had what is known as the slaughter of the innocents. Before the last few years the Government always came forward and announced which measures it would take. I am not referring to the slaughter of private Members' Bills, but of Government measures brought in which cannot be passed. We all know that the pigeon-holes of the Departments are full of measures which they would like to pass, and which would, if passed, be of value to the community. We are told as proof that there is no congestion that during the War the House did not sit full time. Why? Because Ministers were not available or the Departments to advise us and enable us to deal with questions which might have been dealt with. Furthermore, the country was not in the spirit, and had not the time to devote its attention to ordinary legislation, and Members of Parliament were otherwise engaged. That is why they could not sit full time here. We are told that the House does not go on often after seven o'clock: that is proof that you cannot have Members working all day and all the evening. It is proof that the device you have adopted for grappling with congestion prevents Parliament attending to its work. Mr. Gladstone once said that Parliament was over-weighted and almost overwhelmed, and we all know that the position has steadily got worse since that time.
We have exceptional pressure now, but we also have some exceptional relief. We are not working under full party conflict, and those who have been in this House as long as I have know what that means. We are getting through a number of Bills this year any one of which would practically have occupied a whole Session if we were working under ordinary party conditions. We have a great deal less Private Bill legislation, and although on the one hand there is exceptional pressure, it is the fact that on the other we have favourable conditions to legislation. The truth is that we have attempted three great tasks any one of which would have been sufficient for a Parliament. We have attempted to legislate separately for England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to give attention to the affairs of the United Kingdom as a whole, and in addition to that we are looking after the interests of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen. You cannot do it.
We have a Debate on India dealing with 3,000,000 people, and we are given one evening. In order to get through our work
we are continually resorting to the Closure, curtailing Debate, and destroying the control which private Members have over the work and business of this House. We have recently resorted to Committees upstairs, which are doing the work under conditions about which the bulk of hon. Members know nothing. In ordinary times it is this pressure of business that facilitates obstruction, and it makes obstruction under those circumstances a serious party weapon. Half the Members of this House do not know what obstruction really means, but they will have experience of it when we get back to ordinary conditions. It is a very serious party weapon, and it is congestion alone that makes obstruction effective. It all involves more curtailment and more closure, and that tends to destroy the interest of Members in this House. If hon. Members cannot take their part in the Debate, if the matter in which they are interested cannot be fully discussed, if because of the pressure they are besought by the Whips who say to them, "For goodness sake be quiet and do not talk," you are destroying the interest and value of this House, the liberty and independence of those who are in a. majority are sacrificed in this way because of the congestion, because really the Government are forced to indicate to hon. Members that those who talk are the enemy.
It also means that it increases the power of the Government of the, day, and that is a genuine danger. In spite of party discipline I think we ought to have the Government Whips off a great deal more, and have much more free voting, but you cannot do it owing to congestion, because the Government cannot get its measures through, and it is bound to apply the Whip. The House of Commons is becoming less and less a deliberative Assembly, and more and more a mere instrument of party Government. In my judgment that is fatal to popular representative Government and to democratic Government, and if we do not remedy it the time will come when popular representative Government will perish. Every Session since I have been in this House we have been devoting -time to curtailing the powers and privileges of private Members. In this way we deprive them of their interest and power.
I had the honour two years before the War began, of being appointed the Chairman of a Committee created to inquire into the procedure of this House, with a view to suggesting means and methods by which the position of the private Member
might be improved. We sat for two Sessions, but our deliberations were brought to an end by the War, and therefore were not concluded. That Committee was appointed because of the feeling before the War that private Members were gradually being crushed out of their interest in Parliament, and Parliament was suffering on that account. The work is too much for hon. Members to be able to give adequate attention to. We have six Standing Committees, we have about a score of Select Committees, and we have Royal Commissions sitting. We have Private Bill Committees, and, in addition to that, we have a number of unofficial committees of Members of this House which are very valuable and very necessary, and they all take time.
Besides this we have a great deal of correspondence to attend to and it tends to get greater. My right hon. Friend said earlier in this Debate that the mere extension of the franchise brings in more correspondence. Those you represent have a right to write to you, and we have that correspondence to attend to, and we have to go to Departments and gather information and make representations. In addition to that we have to turn up at some Committee or Royal Commission at eleven o'clock in the morning, and sit the greater part of the day on those Committees, and then surprise is expressed that we are not here at 2.45 and do not remain in the House until eleven o'clock. It cannot be done.
Another thing which is a very serious matter is that we do not want here only those who can give all that time. We want men engaged in the actual affairs of the country, engaged in its business and professional life, and working class life and who are in actual touch with them day by day. We do not only want a man who has nothing else to do. We want men engaged in daily life; but if you are to attend to all this correspondence, start at eleven o'clock in the morning, and stay here until eleven o'clock at night, they cannot do it. This is going to diminish the power of the House of Commons. All this is going to deteriorate the Members of the House of Commons because you will not get quite the right men. It means that the Government and the Departments are driven to legislate by Orders in Council, and Regulations issued by Departments, and that is not satisfactory. In some cases it may be necessary and desirable, but in
most cases it is very difficult for the ordinary man to know what the law of the land really is because of these various Regulations. All this tends to increase the power of government.
There is another thing about which I feel very strongly. It also means the overworking of Ministers, and that means that Cabinet control is weakened. I am told that now it is practically hopeless to get members of the Cabinet to consider and deal with the proposals of their colleagues. When proposals are brought before this House by a Government, the ordinary procedure used to be that those were the considered proposals based on the judgment and consideration of the whole of the Cabinet, and we thought that we had got the result of the judgment and experience of the ablest men in our midst. What is the fact now? It is not legislation by the Cabinet but by the Department and the Minister alone, and that is not good enough. It is a very serious matter.
7.0 P.M.
Members of the Government are not on the Front Bench now during Debates as they used to be. When I first came to this House, unfortunately now twenty-seven years ago, the members of the Government were all on the Treasury Bench. What did that mean? That leaders of the Opposition were always on this bench. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where are they now?"] In Mr. Gladstone's day, woe to the man who was in his Cabinet and did not sit on that bench. When you have a Minister who has introduced a Bill here it is his baby, and you must not touch it. You may talk till you are black in the face, but you will make no impression on him until the Whip tells him that he is likely to be left in the cart in the Lobby When a Bill represented the considered judgment of the Cabinet, and they were not in the same position about it as a Minister is now, if Members addressed them, and their point was good, they would tell the Minister, "Yon will have to yield; this is a sound point." You got Amendments and you got consideration for Amendments then that you do not get now that the House is left just in charge of the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is a great advantage to the House to have a Cabinet on the Front Bench. Members then feel that they can speak with some practical effect. You might as well talk to a stone wall as to a Minister in charge of a Bill It all tends-to destroy the interest in debate, and, if you destroy the interest in debate, you
will not get the debate, and you will not get effective criticism and that education of the House and of the Government which is necessary. A "Parliament" means a talking place. Some of the talk will not be of very much value, but in the long run it is useful. It educates the House, and it brings public opinion to bear upon the Ministers. This point is the more serious and the more important because, unfortunately, at the present time, we are practically living under a system of single chamber government. This House, given time, has power to put through anything that it likes, and so long as that is the position it is the more important that what it does put through should be thoroughly considered and carefully discussed, and should not be forced through, as I have known it to be the case with Bills again and again, with half of it, and more than half of it, never discussed at all, but passed under the Closure. It is dangerous when we are practically under single Chamber government, and it is a very great departure from the principles upon which our Constitution has been built up. It is a danger, I believe, to popular government.
We were promised that the question of the Second Chamber should be dealt with. Why has it not been dealt with? Because there has not been time It is a very difficult problem, but it is extremely desirable that it should be faced and should be dealt with. I believe that this devolution would remove some of the difficulties which stand in the way and would very much simplify dealing with that question. What is the position? There is; no country in the world of the population and wealth and with the trade of this country that is governed by a representative single Parliament, and certainly there is no Empire of the variety and extent of ours that has a single Parliament as its supreme authority. I suggest that the remedy for all this is to devolve local national work upon local national Parliaments. That is the position in many countries in the world. Canada has nine provincial Parliaments, Australia six, South Africa four, the United States forty-eight, Germany twenty-six, and Switzerland twenty-two We have had in the past expressions in favour of this devolution from statesmen like Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chamberlain, Lord Rosebery, Mr. Asquith, the present Prime Minister, and Mr. John Redmond. I have heard it suggested that the ten-
dency of the world is towards unity, and that to devolve your power is to go back. I suggest that it is nothing of the kind. The tendency is towards unity, but nowhere is the tendency towards unity in one Parliament. Nowhere since the United States formed their federation—in none of our Dependencies—has union taken the form of setting up one single Parliament. It has taken the form of retaining the local Parliaments and forming another Parliament for the more important and larger questions.

Mr. MARRIOTT: South Africa.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: South Africa has not one Parliament only it retains its four provincial assemblies. The tendency of the times is obviously towards a supreme Parliament with subordinate; provincial legislatures to deal with subordinate matters. Other countries have reached this stage by federation; we shall reach it by devolution. The aim of both is the same, only our condition is different. We have got the one Parliament, and the only way in which we can get the new system is by devolution. Other countries have got the system by federalism. There are only two methods of reaching the same results, and the methods are determined by the present conditions. No one in the United States, in Germany, in Switzerland, in Canada, or in Australia suggests suppressing the subordinate Parliaments and setting up one supreme Parliament. No one suggests getting into the condition and position in which we are placed. We are actually following the trend of modern times. Is it desirable that we should go on dealing with great Imperial affairs in a Parliament which will more and more be elected on domestic issues? The same elector would not always vote for the same man for the two jobs. He would not always vote for the same man to deal with home affairs as he would to deal with Empire affairs, and it is not desirable that our foreign policy and our policy in great Imperial matters should be determined by a Parliament elected on the Trades Disputes Bill, Local Veto, Education, Disestablishment, or something of that kind. That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves at the present time.
A word about Ireland. The Motion was drawn in the form in which it exists in order that it should not in any way hamper or interfere with the Government in any proposals which they may have to deal with Ireland. Everyone admits that Ireland is the weak spot in our con-
stitutional machine. It has baffled this country for a century. We are told to leave it alone. You cannot leave it alone. It will not be left alone. It will not leave us alone, either at home or abroad. It is worse than a great danger; it is a discredit to the statesmanship of this country that we cannot settle it. We cannot permit separation; we cannot grant Dominion government, if that means that Ireland is to be a Dominion. If by Dominion government she means that she is to be part of this Dominion, as the provinces are part of the Dominion of Canada and Australia, that is another thing, but, if she means that she is to be a separate Dominion, then I say that geographical considerations and all questions of defence absolutely forbid it. The union, however, will not be a success, it will not be stable, and it will not be permanent until the festering sore of Ireland is healed. We have got to face the question and to deal with it. It is an essential condition of successful union here as elsewhere that the opinion of the component parts of the union should predominate and prevail in all local and national matters as distinguished from United Kingdom and Imperial matters, and it is because the opinion of Ireland on Irish and national matters has been persistently ignored for a century that we are in the difficulty in which we are to-day.

Mr. R. McNEILL: You are going to ignore it more.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: No, we are going to hand over to them and give them power to deal with these local and national matters. That is the only way in which you will promote a real Union.

Mr. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend said just now that he was not prepared to give Dominion Home Rule to Ireland, but the majority of Ireland are asking for it.

Sir T. WHITTAKER: The trouble has arisen because we did not allow them to deal with their own local and national affairs. We have got into this inflamed condition when requests are made which cannot be granted, but you will never have satisfaction in a country which is ruled in its local and national affairs against the opinion of that country; and that is what we have done for 100 years. While devolution alone will not settle the Irish question, it will very much help the solution of it. Devolution would avoid that exceptional
treatment to which objection is taken. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division (Sir E. Carson) objects to the emphasising of nationality in this Motion. We do not emphasise nationality. We take it as it is. Nationality is there, and we are dealing with nations. The laws and administration are different in England, Scotland, and Ireland. We merely recognise that fact. We are not emphasising it. It is there. The line of demarcation between the laws is national. It is there now; you cannot get away from it. Nationality, after all, is a fact. It cannot be ignored.

Mr. LINDSAY: Do you define nationality?

Sir T. WHITTAKER: It is very easy for people to put questions or to make requests that are impossible. This is not a matter of defining nationality as if we were dealing with Ireland alone. The Motion, however, does not prevent there being two Parliaments in Ireland. I should be very sorry if there were two, but it does not prevent it. This is a request for inquiry and consideration, and, if no other solution can be found, then we may have to try two Parliaments in Ireland; but I think it would be deplorable. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Duncairn said, referring to Ireland, "Do not make a mess of it." But it is mess enough now; the mess is there, and you cannot very well make it worse. At any rate it has to be dealt with. Let me say a word on the question of two Parliaments. I do not desire to see two Parliaments, but it would be quite consistent with the principle of Devolution. Nineteen of the States of the United States of America have smaller populations than the six north-eastern counties of Ulster. Seven out of the nine provinces of Canada have a. smaller population than those six counties. Four out of the six States in Australia also have a smaller population, and half the South African States as well have a smaller population.
But my point is that we have to do something with the problems which we have here, apart from the Irish question. We have to deal with our own Parliament here. Our case in this Parliament is urgent. Is Ireland to prevent us from recovering Parliamentary freedom and efficiency here, because really all the objections taken have been taken by those who naturally have looked at the question through Ulster Are we in this Imperial
Parliament as a whole United Kingdom to be held up by a Parliament that cannot do its work because of trouble in Ireland? Are we to be hamstrung? Are we to keep open a running sore in the Empire because Irishmen cannot agree among themselves as to their own form of Government? We are asked how we would define Imperial and subordinate finance. It is not impossible. It is easy to raise difficulties to sot us by the cars, but we can refer these things to a Conference for the purpose of deciding which of the various methods should be adopted. The United States, Germany, and our great Dominions have found no great difficulty in defining the difference between Imperial and subordinate finance. We are asked by the hon. Member for St. Augustin—

Mr. McNEILL: May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that the St. Augustine's Division has ceased to exist, and that I have the honour to represent Canterbury?

Sir T. WHITTAKER: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I am sorry I have not noticed the change. What is the suggestion the hon. Member makes? It is that these legislative powers should be exercised by county councils. I ventured to smile. Fancy in England and Wales fifty-two legislative bodies with laws differing! With all respect and courtesy, it is ridiculous. Then the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division (Mr. Mackinder) arised a bogey about the preponderance of England I really think that was a topsy-turvy argument. The preponderance already exists. This is where you have the preponderance of England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik) asked us last night a question on this point, and at the same time he whispered to his colleagues something to the effect that they had got a very good thing here and had better stick to it. The preponderance is here, and what we are proposing is to take away matters in which England has the preponderance now, if she likes to exercise it, and give them to these separate Parliaments where England would not preponderate. Therefore, the argument is all the other way. If you had separate Parliaments in these various countries that, you are proposing to federate, and if you were proposing to bring them into one Parliament here, there might be some danger of the preponderance of England. But you have already got it, and we are proposing
to reduce it by giving these subordinate Parliaments large control over their own affairs.
With regard to Ireland, may I venture to say that unless Irishmen can agree—and there does not seem to be much prospect of that—then the Parliament of this country must grapple with the problem and do what it believes to be just and right. It must cut the Gordian knot by producing and enforcing its own scheme. In conclusion, I would just say this, all great business men are at sometime in their career brought to a test. It means whether their business is to grow bigger or whether it has reached its maximum. The test is this: Have they got the courage and capacity to select subordinates to carry on their various departments and to trust them to do so? The big business man, the man having great organising ability himself, has a further capacity to find the right men and put thorn into the various departments and to trust them. If he does that, there is no limit to the extent to which his business may grow. But if he cannot do it he is limited to what he- can look after himself. That is really where this nation is to-day. We are at the limit of what we can do here. Have we got the courage and capacity to say that the right thing is to delegate to various parts of the United Kingdom those matters which they are more competent to deal with than we are, thus relieving our burden, which prevents us not only from doing our duty to the people of these various countries, but to the Empire as a whole?

Mr. WALLACE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) was greatly concerned at the action of the Government in wasting time by granting two days for the discussion of this Motion. I take a totally different view. I regard their action as not only a significant but a hopeful sign that the Government realises that this is a matter which requires very serious consideration. The necessity for some scheme of devolution is so self-evident that it requires no demonstration; but I wish, if I may, to say something about it from the point of view of Scotland. Whatever the opinion of this House may be, there is no mistaking the feeling in Scotland regarding some system of self-government under a scheme of devolution. At a recent Liberal Convention there was no subject which evoked so much enthusiasm as the question of
some form of Home Rule, and with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities I know comparatively few Scottish Members who are not pledged up to the hilt to advocate this policy in the House. It is a matter of common knowledge that Scottish affairs do not receive adequate attention in the House of Commons, and it may arise from two causes. It may arise from the fact that the predominant partner is so selfish as to absorb the major portion of Parliamentary time or; on the other hand, it may arise from the fact that Scottish Members, imbued as they are with a spirit of altruism and with that retiring modesty which is so characteristic of the race, fail to present their demands to this House with that persistency and determination which alone commands success at Westminster. But whatever the position may be, our contention is that Parliament, as at present constituted, is not equal to meeting the legislative demands made upon it.
How are Scottish affairs administered? We have a Secretary for Scotland, and all legislation for Scotland has to filter through the narrow bottle-neck of the Scottish Office in London. The Secretary for Scotland, if I may say so with all respect, is an ideal man for the position. He is always accessible to Scottish Members, and treats them with unvarying courtesy. But what is he called upon to do? What are his duties? He is Minister of Education, Minister of Agriculture, and Minister of Public Health. Indeed, he is responsible for all Local Government Board administration in Scotland. He is responsible really for the administration of all Scottish affairs outside the Law Courts. To discharge these functions adequately would require him to be a sort of Admirable Crichton. He would have to have the wisdom of Solomon. I was reminded by a Scottish friend the other day that had Solomon been Secretary for Scotland under present conditions he would have lost his reputation for wisdom in a very few weeks. He would, however, I think, have been far too wise a man to have accepted such a post. We contend with all modesty that we are quite competent to manage our own affairs. We also contend that in national outlook and sentiment we are considerably ahead of other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not think I am claiming too much in
stating that we are ahead in the matters of education, temperance, and municipal reform, and generally speaking we think that our outlook entitles us to a better system of legislation than we can take advantage of at present. May I suggest we are quite expert so far as financial matters are concerned. There is no race under the sun which knows more exactly the dividing line between judicious expenditure and reckless extravagance, and I sometimes wish that we had Scotsmen at the head of our great spending Department. It may be we are a dull race, with little sense of humour, but we have a very real idea of the value of money.

Sir F. BANBURY: And of certain Government appointments.

Mr. WALLACE: May I suggest that the one desire in our mind is to have the management of our own affairs. We are somewhat tired of English officialism and bureaucracy as we find it at Whitehall. We should be glad to remove our Scottish officials from the contamination of Whitehall. I was surprised to find that that contamination is a very real danger. I recently called at the Scottish Education Department with a deputation concerning-a very important matter of education in, my own Constituency. I had anticipated that, on a question of this kind, I should' be enabled to enlist the active support and co-operation of the Scottish Education Department. When the Scottish Education Department knew that our business concerned the Admiralty, who we contended had not carried out their contract, I was told by the Head of the Scottish Department, with a dignity which totally failed, to impress me, that one Government Department must on no account interfere with another Government Department. I should like to see all our Scottish officials removed from those influences to a purer and more invigorating atmosphere, which we can certainly find for them North of the Tweed. I could say a great deal about why we should have self-government in Scotland. One of the reasons is that we have no North-East corner in Scotland where the loyal inhabitants show their loyalty by breaking the law of the country. That is a great recommendation. We have no religious difficulty; we have no internal jealousies. For instance, my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Labour party (Mr. Adamson) is a constituent of mine. We represent together in this House the county of Fife, which the
House, which prides itself on its knowledge of Scottish history, will recollect was at one time a great historical kingdom by itself. We in Fife have no jealousy at all of other parts of Scotland, and we should be quite willing to fall in with any national system of self-government which is granted to it by this House. We all look at these matters from a business point of view. We are quite convinced of the congestion, and we are quite convinced that if we were granted a system of self-government of our own we should save a great deal of money. We should no longer have these deputations coming down from Scotland and spending long weary weeks in London.
I could give the House examples of where a Lord Provost and Glasgow Baillies and Edinburgh Baillies have spent week after week waiting upon the goodwill and pleasure of this House, and spending a great deal of money in consequence. How over much the presence of Glasgow and Edinburgh Baillies may brighten the life of this dull metropolis of ours, we ought to see that they remain at their duties at home so far as possible to administer their local affairs. No one would deprecate more strongly than I the laying of sacrilegious hands on the institutions and Junctions of this great House. I have heard of new Members who have come here who have been disillusioned, and of others who think we have entered upon a period of Parliamentary decadence. I am glad to say that I share neither view. This House, which always fascinated me from the outside, fascinates me more than ever from the inside. No one with a shred of imagination could come into this great Chamber as a new Member without feeling. a deep sense of responsibility, without a consciousness of its great traditions, without many a glance back at those distinguished and historical figures whose eloquence and public service serve as inspirations to us of the rank and file, who only desire, as private Members, to play a worthy part. I hope the day of disillusionment will be long deferred. Neither do I accept the dictum that Parliament has become decadent. It would be an ill-day for this country when what is euphemistically called "direct action" takes the place of constitutional Government. In view of the extremely critical days in which we live, I cannot help expressing surprise at and making a protest against the statements of certain public men that the present Parliament has no real sanction or authority.
Statements to that effect have been made by men who were in the last Parliament but who are not in this, some of whom held high rank. I suggest to these gentlemen that they are preaching a dangerous doctrine and one which will recoil upon the heads of its exponents and apostles. Our only hope is not to undermine but to strengthen and consolidate in every way the authority of the House of Commons. My last word is that as we have reverence for the past of this House, we have every reverence for the present. It has become clear that it is in no sense equal to the demands made upon it. The after war problems make the position much more difficult and complex and subjects of a strictly Imperial nature must occupy Parliamentary time for many years to come. This House, in view of Imperial responsibility, must become less insular and take a wider view. The relations between the Mother Country and the Dominions overseas must be the concern not only of Government Departments but of each individual Member of the House. In adopting the Resolution before the House we shall accomplish that purpose and also satisfy the national aspirations, so long suppressed, of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales.

Mr. HUGH EDWARDS: Two features have characterised the two days' Debate. The first is the utter elimination of party spirit and prejudice. If this Debate had taken place in pre-war days, anyone sitting in any part of the House would be able to divide the lines of argument which any of the speakers would take. They would follow party lines. In these two days' Debate one has been very much struck with the remarkable fact that some of the strongest speeches in support of the principle of devolution have been made by Unionist Members. I take it that this practical unanimity—I think I may so describe it—in regard to the basic principle of this Resolution has been begotten in every instance from the same cause. There has been deep recognition of the fact that the business of the House is becoming congested, that the Parliamentary machine is in danger of being blocked, and that unless there is something in the way of devolution of function Parliamentary government will break down. I share the view expressed by the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Marriott) when he declared that the most significant statement in the whole Debate was that made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman
the Member for the Duncairn Division of Glasgow (Sir E. Carson) when he said in his speech yesterday that he was in favour of devolution and regarded it as probably destined to save Parliamentary government. An admission of that kind from that quarter is significant in the highest degree, and we may regard it as promising for the future. All the arguments that can be used in favour of a devolution of function have already been used, and one can say nothing new. I rise, however, for the special purpose, on behalf of my Welsh colleagues, to put in a plea for Wales. We are not at all satisfied with the way in which the Motion refers to Wales, and our suspicions have been deepened by the speeches of both the Mover and the Seconder. The Mover was at great pains to show how devolution would affect England, Scotland, and Ireland, but he was absolutely silent in regard to Wales. The Seconder spoke of the three countries and of the three peoples. He spoke of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and he seemed to forget the case of Wales in almost every instance. Some years ago there was published a monumental work, the "Encyclopædia Britannica," which was supposed to represent the whole of human knowledge from a molecule to a planet. It gave one hundred pages to England, one hundred or so to Scotland, and about one hundred to Ireland, but when you turned up Wales you saw this:
Wales—see England.
The House will at once admit the unfairness. There is no argument that can be adduced for establishing the national entity of Scotland or Ireland that cannot be used with equal force in regard to Wales. I would go even further than that. Wales is a greater nation than either Scotland or Ireland. It has a language of its own. I very much doubt whether any Irish Member or Scottish Member can speak Erse or Gallic.

Dr. MURRAY: I beg your pardon!

Mr. EDWARDS: I very much doubt it. Perhaps the hon. Member will give me a specimen when the Debate is over. This House has already recognised the principle of distinctive treatment in regard to Wales. We are different ecclesiastically. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stafford (Captain Ormsby-Gore) will remember that when the Welsh Church Bill was brought before the House special
emphasis was laid upon the distinctiveness of Wales from any other part of the Kingdom. It was one of the stock arguments. We have had it in the realm of education and in regard to the Insurance Commission. Wales has been given an Insurance Commission in the same way as-England, Scotland, and Ireland. If you are going to apply the same principle of devolution to the constituent portions o the United Kingdom on the principle of nationality, Wales is as much entitled to it as Scotland or Ireland. I believe I shall carry the House with me to that extent. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Duncairn Division of Belfast took exception to that. He thought the basis should not be that of nationality, and I believe the hon. Member for Oxford City endorsed that view. But if you do not take nationality, what principle are you going to take? Are you going to take population? Are you going to have one Parliament for South Wales and then take North Wales and add it to Lancashire? Anybody who knows anything about Wales knows that we will not be ruled by anyone but ourselves, although we are quite prepared to give you a Prime Minister. I would appeal again to the hon. and gallant Member for Stafford who, although no longer a Welsh Member, knows how strong the racial sentiment is, and how impossible it is to run anything successfully in Wales unless you have the force of national sentiment behind it. If this Motion is carried, as I believe it will be, I hope that on the Committee there will be placed Members who will have some regard for the nationality of Wales. Wales has too long been regarded as the Cinderella among the constituent nations of the United Kingdom. I wish that both the Proposer and the Seconder of the Resolution would satisfy themselves as to the force and strength of national sentiment in Wales. Next week we are having there a great conference in favour of Welsh Home Rule, and the remarkable thing is that one of the chief men in the movement is the Unionist Member for one of the Divisions of Monmouthshire. In Wales we have no party; we have no Ulster there and no division of opinion. All sects and parties are agreed. For that reason I support this Resolution, with-the further plea that special attention should be given to the case of Wales. While the Mover and Seconder are so keen on advocating the claims of Scotland and Ireland the claims of the smaller countries should not be overlooked.

Sir HENRY COWAN: I should like to say a few words in answer to the question put by the First Lord of the Admiralty to himself yesterday and answered by himself in a way in which I should not have thought of answering it. I refer to the question as to whether there is any other method excepting federal devolution by means of which the congestion of this Parliament could be relieved. There is another way; and although I am strongly in favour of the general purport of this Resolution, though like many other hon. Members I do not altogether agree with its precise terms, although I am entirely in favour of federal devolution, that federal devolution being on the basis of nationality, and have consistently since I came into the House pressed for the right of Scotland to have its own Legislature, still I think if the whole question of devolution is to be inquired into it is right that it should not be forgotten that there is an alternative to the method suggested in the Resolution. It is not necessary, in order to devolve the domestic affairs of this House, to set up four or five or half a dozen separate Legislatures. It is only necessary to set up one subordinate domestic Legislature for the whole of the United Kingdom. To that Legislature might be committed all legislat on not directly concerning the Empire as a whole. To that one Legislature might be committed, for England, for Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all the powers which it is suggested in the Resolution should be conferred upon the separate Legislatures for those four different nationalities, or for the provinces suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. Mackinder).
This method would have the great advantage of simplicity. It would not meet the national aspirations of England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales, but on the other hand it would not excite animosities or arouse prejudices. I suggest that it should be considered by the body which, I presume, will be set up after the passing of the Resolution as an alternative to the other method suggested and as a temporary expedient by which the congestion of business in this Imperial Parliament could be as effectively and adequately relieved as by the method suggested in the Resolution. I do not suggest it as a permanent

solution, but I think while Ireland is in its present position, while it is admittedly so difficult, perhaps impossible, to satisfy Ireland, a temporary measure might be adopted. A few years in the life of a nation are as nothing, and if this system were adopted for only a few years there would, I think, be evolved out of it a completer and more satisfactory system of federal devolution. I admit, however, that there are difficulties, because while Scotland is keenly in earnest in its demand for Home Rule and England is content with the present state of affairs, Wales is certainly dissatisfied and Ireland is undoubtedly angry. But, notwithstanding all these difficulties, I believe the reason why hon. Members, irrespective of party, have combined to give a fair hearing to proposals such as have been put before the House to-day is that they realise the increasing congestion of business and the enormous tax and strain which is being put on their powers, and they realise that the machine is on the point of breaking down, and, therefore, at the conclusion of this Debate I throw out this suggestion to those who are opposed to federal devolution, to those who dislike the idea of setting up Home Rule Parliaments in these different nationalities, as a possible line of compromise which would enable the House effectively to devolve its powers outside the Imperial sphere, and at the same time reserve all other questions for future discussion and settlement.

Question put,
That, with a view to enabling the Imperial Parliament to devote more attention to the general interests of the United Kingdom and, in collaboration with the other Governments of the Empire, to matters of common Imperial concern, this House is of opinion that the time has come for the creation of subordinate Legislatures within the United Kingdom, and that to this end the Government, without prejudice to any proposals it may have to make with regard to Ireland, should forthwith appoint a Parliamentary body to consider and report—

(1) upon a measure of Federal Devolution applicable to England, Scotland, and Ireland, defined in its general outlines by existing differences in law and administration between the three countries;
(2) upon the extent to which these differences are applicable to Welsh conditions and requirements; and
(3) upon the financial aspects and requirements of the measure."

The House divided: Ayes, 187; Noes, 34.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Astor, Major Hon. Waldorf


Adamson Rt. Hon. William
Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Martin
Baird, John Lawrence


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Arnold, Sydney
Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)


Bell, James (Ormskirk)
Henderson, Major V. L.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Bellairs, Com. Carlyon W.
Herbert, Col. Hen. A. (Yeovil)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Benn, Com. Ian Hamilton (Greenwich)
Hogge, J. M.
Rodger, A. K.


Benn, Capt. W. (Leith)
Hope, Harry (Stirling)
Roundell, Lieutenant-Colonel R. F.


Bennett, T. J.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Rowlands, James


Birchall, Major J. D.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian)
Royce, William Stapleton


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Royds, Lt.-Col. Edmund


Bowerman, Right Hon. C. W.
Hume-Williams, Sir Wm. Ellis
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Bowyer, Capt. G. W. E.
Jameson, Major J. G.
Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton)


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Johnstone, J.
Seager, Sir William


Briant, F.
Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Seddon, J. A.


Bridgeman, William Clive
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shaw, Tom (Preston)


Bromfield, W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, J. (Silvertown)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Col. A. L. H.
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Smith, Capt. A. (Nelson and Colne)


Buckley, Lt.-Col. A.
Kenworthy, Lieut-Commander
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir W. J.
King, Com. Douglas
Smithers, Alfred W.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Knights, Capt. H.
Spoor, B. G


Cautley, Henry Strother
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ. Wales)
Stanier, Capt. Sir Beville


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.)
Stanley, Colonel Hon. G. F. (Preston)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Lort-Williams, J.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Child, Brig.-Gen. Sir Hill
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Clay, Capt. H. H. Spender
Mackinder, Halford J.
Swan, J. E. C.


Clyde, James Avon
M'Lean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Brig-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Collins, Col. Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Magnus, Sir Philip
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Colvin, Brig-Gen. R. B.
Malone, Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Compton-Rickett. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Malone, Major P. (Tottenham, S.)
Waddington, R.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Univ.)
Marriott, John Arthur R.
Wallace, J


Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Mildmay, Col. Rt. Hon. Francis B.
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Mitchell, William Lane-
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Major David (Montgomery Co.)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
Moore, Maj.-Gen. Sir Newton J.
White, Charles F, (Derby, W.)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Dawes, J. A.
Mosley, Oswald
Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Wignall, James


Edge, Captain William
Murray, Dr. D. (Western Isles)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox)
Wilkie, Alexander


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Murray, John (Leeds, W.)
Willey, Lt.-Col. F. V.


Edwards, J. H. (Glam., Neath)
Nall, Major Joseph
Williams, A. (Consett, Durham)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Neal, Arthur
Williams, J. (Gower, Glam.)


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Nelson, R. F. W. R.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough)


FitzRoy, Cant. Hon. Edward A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)
Wills, Lt.-Col. Sir Gilbert Alan H.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Wilson. Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Palmer, Brig.-Gen. G. (Westbury)
Wilson, Col. Leslie (Reading)


Gange, E. S.
Parker, James
Wilson, Col. M. (Richmond, Yorks.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John
Parry, Major Thomas Henry
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Glyn, Major R.
Perkins, Walter Frank
Winterton, Major Earl


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Perring, William George
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, W.)


Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Assheton
Wood, Major Mackenzie (Aberdeen, C.)


Greig, Col. James William
Pratt, John William
Woolcock, W. J. U.


Griggs, Sir Peter
Purchase, H. G.
Yate. Col. Charles Edward


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rae, H. Norman
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Grundy, T. W.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Young, Robert (Newton, Lancs.)


Guest, Capt. Hon. F. E. (Dorset, E.)
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler
Young, William (Perth and Kinross)


Hailwood, A.
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. N.



Hall, Capt. D. B. (Isle of Wight)
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hancock, John George
Richards, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Major E. Wood and Mr. Murray


Harmsworth, Sir R. L. (Caithness-shire)
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Macdonald.


Haslam, Lewis
Richardson, R. (Houghton)



NOES.


Archdale. Edward M.
Gretton, Col, John
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, E.)


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Remer, J. B.


Bigland, Alfred
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, S. (Wandsworth, Putney)


Brown, Captain D. C. (Hexham)
Hurd, P. A.
Stewart, Gershom


Brown, T. W. (Down, N.)
Jodrell, N. P.
Townley, Maximillian G.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Larmor, Sir J.
Wedgwood, Col. Josiah C.


Craik, Right Hon. Sir Henry
Lindsay, William Arthur
Wilson, Capt. A. Stanley (Hold'ness)


Donald, T.
Lorden, John William
Wolmer, Viscount


Eyres-Monsell, Com.
M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Bosworth)



Falcon, Captain M.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir


Fell, Sir Arthur
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Frederick Banbury and Mr. Ronald


Gardner, E. (Berks., Windsor)
Nield, Sir Herbert
McNeill.


Grant James Augustus
Preston, W. R.



Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, with a view to enabling the Imperial Parliament to devote more attention to the general interests of the United Kingdom and, in
collaboration with the other Governments of the Empire, to matters of common Imperial concern, this House is of opinion that the time has come for the creation of subordinate legislatures within the United Kingdom, and that to this end the
Government, without prejudice to any proposals it may have to make with regard to Ireland, should forthwith appoint a Parliamentary body to consider and report—

(1) upon a measure of Federal Devolution applicable to England, Scotland, and Ireland, defined in its general outlines by existing differences in law and administration between the three countries;
(2) upon the extent to which these differences are applicable to Welsh conditions and requirements; and
(3) upon the financial aspects and requirements of the measure."

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY SUPPLY [MONEY].

Considered in Committee

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the supply of electricity, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Treasury to advance out of the Consolidated fund such sums not exceeding in the aggregate twenty million pounds as may be required in connection with the construction of interim works, and to borrow money by means of Exchequer Bonds for the issue of such sums or the repayment thereof; the principal of and interest on such bonds to be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund;
(b) to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the interest on stock issued under the powers of such Act by the Electricity Commissioners appointed thereunder up to an amount not exceeding twenty-five million pounds, and the charge on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling such guarantee;
(c) to authorise the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for five years after the passing of such Act by way of advance of any excess of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners over their receipts."—[Sir Hamar Greenwood.]

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move in paragraph (a) to leave out the word "twenty" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
This Resolution is of a remarkable character, and I am not quite sure that the committee realises what it is asked to do in the short time between 8 o'clock and 8.15. The first part of the Resolution proposes to authorise the Treasury to advance £20,000,000 out of the consolidated fund for the purposes of the Electricity Dill. The second part of the Resolution proposes to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the interest on a further £25,000,000. There is also a liability proposed to be incurred in regard to the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners.
The whole proceedings in relation to the Electricity Bill are subject to contention. The Bill is by no means an agreed one, and this Resolution is some measure of the ambitious scale upon which the authors of the Bill are proceeding. They evidently intend that they shall control all the electricity supplies of the country. At any rate that is the suspicion in the minds of many persons who have, examined the Bill. The genesis of the Bill is somewhat interesting. The proposal was put into the Ways and Communications Bill as a kind of afterthought. The Minister of Ways and Communications considered that he would not be able to carry out the full powers of that Bill unless he was in absolute control of the whole electricity supplies of the country. But the proposals presented in that way was disagreed with, and we now have this separate Bill brought forward and we are asked to authorise an expenditure of £20,000,000, and to guarantee interest involving a further £25,000,000, making a liability to the State in capital and interest of £45,000,000. I submit that this is not the time for the State to embark upon great adventures of this kind involving unlimited expenditure. We are already committed to the huge expenditure necessarily arising out of the War and various other contingencies which have to be met also arising out of the War. This committee would be ill advised to allow the Resolution to go through un-amended, thereby undertaking the very vast expenditure involved. On those grounds I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). The sum of £5,000,000 would give the Minister opportunity to exercise his powers, and it is unreasonable and improper that any Minister should under the present circumstances and in our present monetary position in the country be allowed to spend without further reference to Parliament a sum of more than £5,000,000. There is nothing to prevent the Minister under the powers of this Bill drawing up very costly schemes and having a roving commission in connection with electricity supplies without coming to Parliament for the approval of such schemes, and it appears to me and many hon. Members that such schemes should be subject to Parliamentary control and that the Minister should not have practically unlimited powers to expend these vast sums of money without check or control.

Mr. MARRIOTT: It would be singularly ungracious and ungrateful if I did not recognise in these series of financial Resolutions some approximation to public virtue. I believe that these Resolutions are in pursuance of a policy which was suggested to this House by the Select Committee on National Expenditure during the last Session of Parliament of which I was a Member. I, therefore, realise that the Government, in making this detailed proposition, are attempting to meet the views expressed by that Committee. Nevertheless, I agree very cordially with my hon and gallant Friend that they arc really asking by these Resolutions for a roving commission to inquire into the whole electricity supply of this country. I submit that their demand for £20,000,000 is not justified by anything which is in the text of the Bill which they have submitted to the House, nor by any reasons which they have so far advanced in the memorandum which has been submitted. In that memorandum, I recognise another approximation to virtue, for which I am sincerely grateful to my hon. Friend (Sir H. Greenwood) or whoever is responsible. Notwithstanding the facts of the memorandum and the Bill, I still think that the Government are asking for a sum which the House of Commons ought to be very slow to give on the evidence before them at the present time. Therefore I support the Amendment.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Sir H. Greenwood): The House of Commons passed the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill and following that the financial Resolution now on the Paper was put down. In addition there is in the Vote Office a detailed memorandum setting out the principal expenditure for the coming year, and it has nothing to do with £45,000,000 or £25,000,000 or £20,000,000. It sets out very clearly that the probable expenditure for the financial year ending 1st April, 1920, under the head of Capital Expenditure, will be £1,000,000, and that the expenditure for staff will probably not exceed £35,000. There is a third item, that of the guaranteed interest by the Treasury on a maximum of £25,000,000 to be raised by the Electricity Commissioners under certain circumstances. It is impossible to say what the interest will be for the coming year, but on the face of it cannot be the maximum interest on £25,000,000. I submit, therefore, that the
Committee is not asked to do anything unreasonable in passing this financial Resolution, after the explanation made in the detailed memorandum which is in the Vote Office, and which I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member had not read at the time he made his speech.

Sir D. MACLEAN: It has only just been put in the Vote Office.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I agree, but as soon as a Paper is in the Vote Office, I presume that every Member of the House is at once supposed to have knowledge of its contents.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The only time a Minister is entitled to assume that hon. Members have knowledge of Papers in the Vote Office is when they have been circulated with the Papers in the morning.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Not necessarily.

Sir D. MACLEAN: This Paper has only just been put, in the Vote Office, and so far as our practice goes these sort of Papers arc circulated with our Papers in the morning.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I was not aware that these Papers were necessarily circulated with the Votes but, on the little pink paper that every Member gets, this was mentioned, and if they wished to receive the Memorandum they would only need to make their mark on the Paper and they would get it.

Mr. MARRIOTT: This Memorandum was not on the pink paper.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret that the Memorandum only arrived in the Vote Office to-day but the fact that it is there, giving the detailed estimate for the year, which does not approach the vast sums mentioned by the Mover of this Amendment, does justify me in hoping that after this explanation I shall be allowed to get this Resolution now.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and. ask leave to sit again.
Clearly we ought to study this Memorandum before this matter proceeds any further.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Mr. GRANT: I beg to move,
That the present rate of Public Expenditure causes anxiety in regard to the financial stability of the country, and that all possible means for the reduction of expenditure should receive the immediate attention of the Government.
The subject of this Resolution is of great interest at the moment, and is one of the gravest national importance The position in which we find ourselves owing to the expenditure on the War calls for the most rigid economy in every Department of state, and it is the duty of every Member of this House to give all the publicity which he can to the actual financial situation, so that all of as may more and more be imbued with the necessity of caution in regard to spending money In drawing attention to this question, and what I consider excessive Government expenditure at the present, time, I have no desire to make any attack upon the Government. In a democratic country—and there is no more, democratic country than our own—Governments always will be to a large extent the victims of circumstance, and if at the present time the Government is liable for any unjustifiable expenditure, I think that we in this House are also to a large extent responsible, and also that responsibility cannot be taken from the general public of this country. In consequence, it is well, when opportunity is offered, that we should call the attention of the electorate of the country to the financial situation as it presents itself to us. Owing to his private affairs, and his attention to the ordinary business of the country, the elector has neither time nor opportunity, and no doubt in some cases he has not got the aptitude, to realise what the Estimates of the year really mean, but it seems to me well that he should realise what is the actual financial position. In my brief remarks I would devote myself chiefly to certain items of expenditure of unusual magnitude which appear in the Estimates of the year.
I would first call attention to the expenditure which we are called upon to face during the current year in connection with our railway system. The Government is under an obligation to pay the owners of our railways an amount equal to that which they received in the year 1913. It is stated by the Board of Trade that during the current financial year the expenditure on our railways in excess of what was expended in 1913 will be something between
£104,000,000 and £109,000,000. That excess expenditure apparently will be met to a considerable extent by an increase in passenger fares, an increase in parcel rates and other increases, and also an expected increase of business which will reduce this, large amount to the extent of some £40,000,000 or £50,000,000, but that leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the taxpayers, the industries, of this country will have to find some £60,000,000 or £70,000,000 to carry on our railway system in this financial year. This is not the time and it is no part of my duty to discuss the question of nationalisation of railways, but in passing one cannot help calling attention to the fact that if nationalisation means running our railways at the present rate of expenditure, it is hardly a profitable venture.
I pass from the question of the enormous subsidy to the railways to the question of our coal mining industry It is not for one like myself, untutored in these matters to come to any very exact conclusion from studying the Estimates, but, under correction, I have come to the conclusion that the coal mining industry during the current financial year will cost the country from £30,000,000 to £40,000,000. In the Report issued by Mr. Justice Sankey and his colleagues, it appears that up to the 31st of December this year the increased, cost will be something like £30,000,000. The Treasury estimate for the remaining months of the financial year another £7,000,000 will be required. Also under the coal mining agreements there is a sum of £6,000,000. It is true that some £2,000,000 of this is for expenditure in the last financial year, but that does not interfere with the point which I make, that £6,000,000 will be required as well. I put not exactly on the same level, but it comes to the same thing in the end, the fact that the direct taxation of shareholders in coal mines will of necessity be lowered. I have taken the advice of those who are qualified to speak on the matter, and the only conclusion I can come to is that in direct taxation there will be a loss of something like £16,000,000 in the present financial year as the result of the recommendations of the Commission and other matters. That will not be met by any taxation imposed on the increase of wages. No doubt a certain amount of revenue will come from that source, but if you put this at £1,000,000, it will be as much as you can get. The result is that, look at it as we like, we must come to the conclusion that, under
present conditions the coal-mining industry is not a paying concern. Turn to another industry—the iron ore industry. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to give any exact figures which I can rely upon sufficiently, but under present conditions, undoubtedly, the iron ore industry must be ranked as a subsidised industry and not as an economic paying concern. I believe it is possible that by-and-by an alteration may take place, but as matters stand it is not an economic proposition. It seems to be somewhat of a tragedy in days like these that such great industries as those I have mentioned should be losing rather than making millions as they did in days gone by. It is a situation which cannot possibly continue and we must hope that it will not be long before we see some alteration.
I turn to another item in the Estimates, of a somewhat staggering nature. I am not mentioning to the House anything that it docs not already know, but it is necessary that I should state the facts. I refer to the subsidy which it is estimated will be required from the public funds for the bread making industry. The 4lb. loaf at present is limited in price to 9d. The baker is able to sell the loaf at that price owing to the fact that the Government let him have flour well under cost price. It is possible that every loaf that is made costs the country from 3d to 4d. At any rate, in the aggregate the public purse will have to be crippled by some £50,000,000 for the bread making industry. It seems to be an appalling thing that one industry should receive a subsidy of that kind in a single year. In coming to another item I have no desire to open a discussion on the unemployment benefits. Personally, I regret the system by which these donations have been established. I could wish—and I think it would have met the requirement—if some system of insurance had been employed instead of the non-contributory scheme, which I am afraid in many cases has been an incentive to unemployment rather than an incentive to work. The period between war and peace had to be met. It was obvious that there would be a great deal of unemployment and the country insisted that some scheme should be put forward. The House, moreover, was pledged to carry it out. The result has been appalling, whatever way you look at it. During the current financial year £37,500,000
of public money will be paid to men and women who are doing nothing, when every industry in the country is calling out for labour. That is a most undesirable situation, and I hope that some alteration may take place before long.
I pass to another Ministry, the Ministry of Shipping. From the way in which the Estimates are presented I find it difficult to understand on what commercial basis they stand, but it appears that something over £20,000,000 of current expenditure will be met out of receipts arising from the sale of ships in excess of the payment for new ships. It appears that £20,000,000 of capital is being used for revenue purposes, to meet losses of a commercial character. In coming to such a conclusion I stand under correction, but these conclusions I came to and I have taken into account the fact that the Ministry of Shipping is responsible for the conveyance of troops. I come next to a smaller item—canals. We might have thought that that would be at least not a matter of expenditure, but here again we find that a sum of something like £1,000,000 must be paid in subsidy during the present financial year to carry on the canals. I turn to the Post Office, a huge commercial concern doing a vast amount of business, so vast, in fact, that one might expect a profit to be made out of it if it was run on strictly commercial lines. In days gone by we looked on the Post Office as one of the paying Departments of the Government. I do not remember quite what the figures were, but I do not think that I take an excessive estimate if I say that £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 was the amount usually expected as a return from the Post Office, in the present financial year it appears that there is to be a contribution to the Post Office rather than a profit.
My attention has also been directed to an expenditure of £2,000,000 in connection with the Treasury Security Deposit Scheme, which was inaugurated primarily and very rightly for the purpose of maintaining the rate of exchange between the United States and ourselves. As the American exchange has now been improved I think it is highly desirable that as soon as possible this scheme should be wound up. I do not know whether action has been taken in that direction, but I hope that every effort is being made. If we add the various sums together we find that they amount to subsidies of several millions to be paid in. the present financial
year to a number of undertakings which at the moment are nationalised. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes down to the House and borrows money to meet that expenditure. The taxpayer is not called on to pay and does not know of this. I suggest if those large sums are to be continued they should come out of the taxation of the country so that everyone should know. We have to pay the interest on this money now, and some day we will have to meet the debt incurred. The people of this country are not unreasonable. There is a tremendous amount of commonsense amongst all classes of the British people, and once they are given to realise the facts, however an comfortable they may be, they will face them. I think if the Government frankly told the people of the seriousness of the British financial situation they would realise that we cannot afford to give these subsidies out of borrowed money. Much might be said in regard to excessive expenditure in several Departments. I am afraid we must recognise that Government Departments are always run more extravagantly than any private concern. In a private concern the head or managing director, or whoever it is who is in charge, must, as his first business, make it a paying concern, and incidentally to avoid waste. In a Government Department the head is chiefly concerned with the policy and the making of that policy acceptable to this House. He is not cognisant of and does not know the details of what is going on in his Department. There are many consequences, and one of them is elaboration of system which undoubtedly multiplies two or three times the personnel which you would find in any business concern. I am very far from desiring to make any criticism of our Civil servants, who are a most admirable body of men for whom I have the highest respect, but the security of tenure which they enjoy militates against economic practices. As our expenditure has reached such a huge amount I think it would be well, in connection with the spending Departments, to appoint another Undersecretary, whose duty it would be in every possible way to cut down the expenditure of the Departments he represented. Expenditure has become almost a second nature with officials and the order of things which prevailed during the War still exists to a great extent. Officials have not yet fully realised that the pro-
cedure which was indispensable during the time of War is altogether inexcusable in peace circumstances. I do not think officials are conscious of extravagant practices, and it has not been insisted strongly enough on them how necessary economy is at the present time. I wish some spirit of emulation could be introduced into Government Departments to practise economy. I hope we shall avoid as far as we can any pressing of the Government to any excessive expenditure of money. It is customary to ask for a concession here or a concession there, but our present financial position, I think, calls for nothing but the hardest business-work. If the Government will only act on the strictest business lines and not be diverted from that course by clamour or by any desire to please, I feel confident that they will always have a majority at their back in this House. There never has been a House of Commons with greater work to perform than this. It cart only do it by hard business work, and if our work were conducted on such lines I feel sure that this House would gain lasting respect, though it might lose some temporary applause.

Sir F. BANBURY: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend says, quite truly, that the curtailment of expenditure is never a popular thing to recommend, and he suggests that we should begin by looking at home. I have been a good many years in the House of Commons, and I have always found that the majority of Members of the House if you meet them outside or in the Smoking Room are all very anxious for economy. But inside the House, when someone proposes some measure which calls for expenditure, those who oppose it find themselves very unpopular. That has been the invariable practice for many; years, tout I hope the seriousness of the present situation will cause an alteration. The other day I ventured to say that I believed the necessity for economy was present to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he acknowledged that statement by nodding his head. I went on to say, and this second statement was not contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman, that I very much doubted whether it was in the minds of his colleagues.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I must try to correct myself of that bad habit of nodding my head. It is dangerous. If I
am to shake my head every time I disagree and to nod my head every time I agree, I shall never be quiet. The right hon. Baronet must not connect me with criticism of my colleagues merely because I sat silent.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, I had no intention of doing so. I think it is patent to everybody in the House and the country that, with the exception of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the desire for economy does not burn very fiercely in the breasts of the other members of His Majesty's Government. Like my hon. Friend, I have no wish to make any attack upon the Government or upon anybody else, but the fact remains that the expenditure is going on with the sanction of the Government, and so far with-out any very great interference on the part of this House. But I hope that after this Debate the result will be that some due regard will be paid to economy. This afternoon the President of the Board of Trade informed us that the result of the curtailment of production by the miners would mean a loss of £46,000,000 a year, which would have to be borne by somebody—either the taxpayer or the consumer, or very likely by both. Let us consider what that means. In the old days £46,000,000 would have been a very enormous sum. It is very nearly, if not quite, half the whole annual national expenditure when I first became a Member of this House. That £46,000,000, if it is borne by the taxpayer, will add a very serious burden to the very heavy burdens which are already pressing upon him, and if it is borne by the consumer it will be a very serious burden upon the industries of this country. It is very necessary for the industry of this country that coal should be cheaply produced, but at the present moment coal is not being cheaply produced, and the expense of the production of coal is thrown upon the taxpayer.
I attended this afternoon a meeting in one of the Committee Rooms of this House, and Mr. Harold Cox gave us some very interesting figures showing the result of the interference of the Government with these various industries in the country. He gave these figures as applicable to a certain colliery. He said the royalties had increased by a penny a ton, the profits had increased from 2s. 3d. to 3s. 8d. a ton, but out of that the coal-owner had to pay Excess Profits Tax, but the wages have
gone up from 4s. 11d. a ton to 15s. 11d. a ton. This is the result, as far as I can make out, of Government interference, and it is quite impossible that the country can go on bearing burdens of that sort. I could not quite make out from Mr. Harold Cox whether it was 3s. a day or 3s. a ton, but under the Sankey award 3s. a day or a ton is given to the miners. And what for? For not working. If they do not work they get 3s. a day or a ton, as the case may be. My hon. Friend alluded to the results of the subsidies which are being given by the Government, and this is one of the effects of those subsidies. What the Coal Controller has cost us before I do not know, but at any rate he is now going to cost us £40,000,000. Then there is bread, which I understand is much nearer £60,000,000 than the figures which my hon. Friend gave. That is £106,000,000. Then there are £60,000.000 for the railways, and very nearly £40,000,000 for unemployment. That comes to £206,000,000. Then there is housing, and what on earth that is going to cost I do not know. Just consider what these figures are. Over £200,000,000 a year without housing. Then there was a comfortable little Resolution to-day which suggested that £45,000,000 should be obtained from somewhere or other for electricity. That, I think, is not an annual, but a capital expenditure, but still, it is an extremely large amount.
Then I happened to come across, as Chairman of the Select Committee on National Expenditure—I do not think there is any secrecy about it—a little item of about £500,000 a year to be spent on civil aviation. I dare say it is a very excellent thing, but why we should subsidise it by spending £500,000 a year on it I do not know. If we want to make any improvement in aviation, let us make it with the forces of the Crown. But why we should allow civilians to benefit by a subsidy from the State I fail to see. Therefore, putting aside the question of housing, which is an abyss into which I do not want to fall, there is over £200,000,000 on quite a small number of things, and that is quite irrespective of the enormous expenditure we must meet for pensions, interest on debt, and for a variety of other subjects of that sort. My hon. Friend—and here I rather disagree with him—seemed rather to object to the Chancellor of the Exchequer borrowing money for this year. I myself do not object to that. I think it was the only thing to do, and I think, if I may say so, we are very fortunate in
having my right hon. Friend as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope he will not mind my saying that. I say it with all sincerity. I do not think it was possible for him to do otherwise than he has, but when next year comes, when the War is over, and when we ought to pay off all the various arrears of expenditure which have arisen out of the War, then I do think that we ought to pay our annual expenditure out of our annual revenue—that is, after March or April of next year. We first of all have to think whether this House will do that. It will be very difficult to do if we do not curtail expenditure to a very appreciable extent. It will be impossible, I believe, to do it if we do not curtail expenditure, or if we increase it. What I view with so much dread is that I see no sign anywhere of any real desire to curtail expenditure, In the public Press and everywhere one comes across projects—I dare say they are good; I do not say for a moment they are not—but they are all projects which involve the expenditure of money. In my young days—I am not sure in my old age I should not like to spend a certain amount of money and enjoy myself, but if I have not got it, I must exercise a little self-denial and say I must not spend that money or enter upon that pleasure. That is exactly what I want the Government to do, but they do not feel inclined to do it, or, rather, the nation will not back them up.
9.0 P.M.
One of the most extraordinary things is what the nation is doing at the present moment. Where is all the money coming from? You see people going to the Derby; you cannot get a taxi-cab; there are motors all over the place; every train is full; the passenger traffic for the last four months has been larger than it has been at any time within, I should say, twenty years, or probably longer. I am not at all sure it is not larger than at any time in the history of this country, and that notwithstanding we are told the fares are so high that people cannot afford to pay them. So far as I can see, from my experience as a railway director, they can afford to pay double, and even then we should find it very difficult to carry them, so anxious are they to travel about in our comfortable and luxurious carriages. However that may be, where does the money come from? So far as I know, all my friends are certainly far poorer than they were before the War. Their incomes in the majority of oases are less, and they
have to meet an enormous amount of taxation, and what is left to them is not worth what it was before. But I am afraid that the fictitious prosperity—because it is nothing else—which exists at the present moment is due to the fact that these people who have made out of the War a considerable sum of money arc spending it as fast as they possibly can, and a good deal, I venture to say, is owing to that horrible system of currency notes which have increased by a sum of something like £60,000,000 since the Armistice on 11th November. I think I am right in ray figures. They have gone up from £290,000,000 to £345,000,000 at the present moment. There is a little fall; it was £349,000,000. That enormous amount of currency notes, I ventured to say a few weeks ago in this House, is worth no more really than a bit of paper It is greatly owing to that printing press that a good deal of this fictitious prosperity arises.
The first thing I think we have to do is to endeavour to cut our coat according to our cloth. It is going to be a little unpopular. Unfortunately, a great many Members made a large number of promises at the election. We must forgive them for doing it in the excitement of the moment. When standing on the platform in front of a cheering audience sometimes one's tongue runs a little away with one, and one says things which arc met with a burst of cheering. Then one goes home, has a bottle of soda water, sometimes with a little whisky in it—if you can get it—and you feel what a great man you were. Very often, in your calmer moments later on, however, you regret it. That was what occurred at the last General Election. A great many promises were made, but very few can be carried out, and the sooner we let the electors know the better that we have all made mistakes—not for the first time in our lives—and that there is not going to be a new heaven and a new earth, and that the only way to make a new heaven and a new earth is not to expect higher wages and shorter hours, but to do as much as you can to produce something which is valuable, and to work as hard as you can to produce as much of that valuable commodity as you possibly can. I was very glad indeed to hear—I think it was the day before yesterday—several Members of the Labour party pointing out the necessity of increasing production, because I am sure that is the only thing you can possibly do to make the country prosperous
again by increased production and diminished expenditure. By so doing you will compel people to live a little longer in an uncomfortable house, but not at a high rent, because the landlord is the only person, so far as I know, who has not received in some shape or form a war bonus to meet the increased cost of living, except perhaps the rentier, a man living on a fixed income.
I feel quite certain, speaking from many years' experience in the City, that if this expenditure goes on we are on the road to ruin. It is no use denying it. It is much better to take time by the forelock when you can. We cannot go on spending money on every scheme, however good, however desirous we might be of doing it in different times. We now have to face a very serious time before us, and I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend for putting down this Motion. We have got to make the country understand. I am sure if they understand they will do what they did in the War—their duty!—so that they may leave something for their children to inherit, something as good as they themselves have been able to get. If we do not make them understand that, well, then, I am afraid—I will not say what I am afraid of—it is really too serious a result to mention. I, however, do earnestly ask the House and I am sorry there are not more here to listen to what is said on this subject—and I earnestly ask the Government to consider whether the time has not come when we should tell the country that we have not got the money to do all these various things asked for; and that, therefore, what they have to do is not to consider how to get all these things, but how to do without many of them. As was told us in the Committee Room, a card was sent round to certain workmen asking them, "Would you like shorter hours and increased pay?" Of course they said "Yes." So would I, and so would everybody else. But what we have to do is to ask them, "Will you work harder and for less money?" That is the only way. If the country becomes bankrupt, then the whole thing goes. You can save the situation now; if you do not you will rue it. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I rise to speak on this most important matter, and I must congratulate the hon. Member for Whitehaven who has raised it.
The matter is one of extreme importance, as we have just been told by so eminent a financial expert as the right hon. Baronet opposite. But I am rather surprised at this Motion coming from the other side of the House. So far as I can make out the demand for the most excessive expenditure of all comes from that side. I suppose the greatest drain upon our resources at present is the result of the demand voiced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House. I refer to our subsidies to the various expeditions in Russia. I think the House will be well-advised to consider most carefully this most important matter. The Minister for War gave us a glowing account of the progress being made by the various counter-revolutionary general in Russia. We are going to supply these Russian temporary Allies of ours with everything in the way of munitions. They are even wearing the uniforms of our soldiers. I saw it stated in the Press that 100,000 tons of war material had been landed recently in the south for General Denikin. Many of our instructors—British officers—are with these armies. These instructors will have their staffs with them; they are drawing travelling expenses, and they are spending money in every possible way. This expenditure will be incurred for at least, I should think, three years; for, should these counter-revolutionary movements succeed and reach the old capital of. Russia—Moscow—we shall have to support, them in the same way. It would make one much more comfortable if we knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was giving due weight to the serious financial situation in which we are placed by this sort of policy. In the Minister for War's, speech not one word was said about expenditure. I am not going into the Russian policy at the present moment, but I desire simply to draw attention to this very serious drain upon our resources.
There are other serious drains. One of them is the great number of people being kept in this country on unproductive work, and, as I believe, unnecessary work. I do not refer to the people out of employment, largely through no fault of their own, who are drawing unemployment donation: I am referring to the undemobilised persons in this country. I am not now in any way referring to our Army of Occupation on the Continent or to our armies abroad in our different Possessions and Protectorates: I am re-
ferring to the large army of demobilisable persons round the coasts of the Kingdom and in the various towns. It does not require a very bright lookout to see these establishments throughout the country. Take, for instance, the aerodromes. During the War we were faced with the very serious submarine menance. One of the most effective means of combatting this was by the establishment of seaplane bases around the coasts. These are certainly being slowly wound up—but all too slowly! Not only around the coasts, but on the Continent are these air stations. Their hangars are empty, yet they have their operational staffs, with due allowances, and with the women belonging to the "Wrafs" and their officers. These officers have to have men along with them and other persons clearing up the messes. They are performing no useful functions, because everyone of the German submarines is safely in our keeping, and there is no reason whatever why these aerodromes should not be wound up and the men demobilised, apart from the provision of any reserves that might be wanted in the future.
It is months ago since the Armistice. We are now in June. We had the German fleet in our keeping early. Again, take the question of flag-officers and commanders, a subject I perhaps know best about. Take the officers and men employed in connection with coast defence, control of the sea traffic, and engaged in the anti-submarine warfare around the coast. They are not being demobilized. Practically no reduction has been made since the Armistice. Each one of these flag-officers and commanders has to have his retinue and staff, furniture allowance, and, in some cases, entertainment allowance. There is no work for these officers to do. I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baldwin) will point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if he can also give a hint to the Admiralty in this matter, that the demobilisation of these gallant officers might be expedited. With them will be able to go a good many junior ratings who, at any rate, want to return to productive work in industry. There are also various military camps. There are coast defence forces still remaining, for example, in Kent. I do not know whether anyone still proposes to invade us, or why these camps should remain with their nucleus staffs. A great economy could be effected if these could be demobilised. It is the same with the fighting forces in the
big towns. There are different regional commanding officers with their staffs and they are holding on to their jobs as long as they possibly can. If they were demobilised and returned whence they came, or placed on half-pay, they would still be able to live.
In the parlous state of the finances of the country I am sure the House will agree with me that this should be done at the earliest possible moment. It may be stated that a great number of these women have done good work in the War as members of the Auxiliary Army Corps and the Air Force, and that if they were suddenly demobilised they would come under the unemployment head, but at any rate they would not be a charge on the country for rations, clothing, and quarters, and other people again to look after them. In this way a great economy could be brought about at once by hurrying up the demobilisation of the home forces at different places in regard to coast defence and anti-submarine warfare, and also in regard to the subsidies and expeditions in which we are supplying munitions to Asia and Eastern Europe. Freights are tremendous at the present moment, and I hope we shall examine this expenditure with the greatest care. Paper money is flooding the country, and there is no gold reserve behind it, and this is one of the most serious charges that is now being made against the Soviet Government in Russia at the present moment, and I am sorry that we are doing the same thing. The result, is that up go the prices and there is a demand for higher wages, and the whole of our finances get deeper into the mire. There must be a halt, and that very soon.

Mr. THOMAS DAVIES: I represent a purely agricultural district, and I confess that I am absolutely lost when I come to matters of finance. I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Grant) and the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), and although both of them have been advocating economy neither of them put a finger on the spot where we could economise. My Constituency sent me here in order to see where we could reduce taxation. I should like some enlightenment as to how a common or garden Member of this House can put his finger on the extravagance alleged and put a stop to it. The Minister for War the other day mentioned that he
wanted £65,000,000 for the Air Service, and that nearly knocked me down. I went out of the House and into the corridor and asked myself how I should vote upon this question. I spoke to several other hon. Members, and they were in exactly the same plight. We seem to have no means of putting our fingers on the spot and checking the figures. Then I reflected what would happen if I went back into the Chamber and objected to this £65,000,000 being voted for the Air Force. In all probability I thought the Minister would say, "Do you object to the number of men?" I have nothing to guide me as to whether the men are sufficient or insufficient. Supposing the Minister said, "Do you object to the number of machines?" Again I have no means of checking them, and there is nobody to ask how many are required. If the Minister said to me, "Do you object to the number of aerodromes?" I could have said that I do, because in the county of Gloucester we have aerodrome after aerodrome put up at great expense, and they are not being used at all.
The next point is that we are asked to vote so many millions for the Army or the Navy. How am I to know whether the number of men put down is sufficient or more than sufficient? There are hon. Members who say that you may reduce the Army by thousands and hundreds of thousands and the expenditure by many millions. What check have I on any expenditure whatsoever in this House? I have nothing to guide me, and if someone would point out to me how I, as an agricultural Member, can get to know whether certain figures are necessary or not, whether so many ships are wanted in the Navy or not, or whether so much money is necessary to be spent on the railways, I shall be greatly obliged. I confess if I cannot take this information back to my Constituents they will think I am a worse duffer than I am. I know I am a duffer, but I do not want to be a duffer longer than I can avoid.
I have had many letters asking about the release of men from the Army. I had one asking for the release of three pivotal men, and this man says that he is not able to retain the men he has got in his employment because they are only labourers, and his pivotal men are being retained in the Army doing odd jobs which is like washing up cups and saucers, although they are men who would earn
between £6 and £8 a week in this country. There must be something topsyturvey about a system under which skilled engineers are employed upon electric lighting, and who are kept doing odd jobs which might be done by unskilled labourers. I spoke to a builder this week and he said, "I have any amount of unskilled labour, but as for masons, carpenters, blacksmiths, or glaziers, I cannot get them out of the Army." And yet the War Office release unskilled men who come over to this country, and they are now without work, drawing unemployment pay. If someone will tell me where I can get enlightenment and what sort of an answer I can make to my Constituents on these points, I shall be uncommonly pleased.
We are told to go in for economy, economy, economy, but I see no signs of it. I am the trustee for a poor widow, and all her money is invested in small house property, which was heavily mortgaged at the beginning of the War. The Income Tax has gone up, but there has not been a penny piece of vent increase. I have known this property for many years, and I know there has been no raising of the rent on that particular property for twenty-five years, so this lady cannot be described as a blood-sucking landlady. Here is a case where, owing to heavy taxation, this poor widow, who used to get £130 a year from her property, is now reduced to £80 a year. I put it that this £80 ought to be £160 in order to keep her in the same position. It is that class of person who is hit harder than anybody I know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes; but where is the remedy? This kind of thing is going on all over the country, and it is not confined to any particular district or city.
Taxation seems to go round in a vicious circle. The working classes say that the cost of living is going up, and they must have more wages. The person producing the goods says he has to pay more for raw material and for wages, and, therefore, his prices must go up, and this vicious circle goes on all the time round and round, and it is time a stop was put to it. I want to know where I can put the brake on. I went into four Government offices one day last week, and I confess that the number of people who waited upon me was so great that they were tumbling one over the other, and no less than five people came to me and asked, "Who do you want to see?" I should like to have seen four of them out of it getting their living in
tome other way. I have seen motor car after motor car in St. James's bringing up officials to have their luncheon. Why should I pay for that? They do not pay for me to have my luncheon, and I cannot see why money should be spent in that way when it is so much needed for the necessaries of life. If some one will get up and point out how we can put our finger on the spot and cut down our expenditure, I will follow him into the Lobby every time.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: The last speaker, in a very interesting speech, has shown how sterile a discussion of this kind can be. If we are to deal with the Motion in the way in which he discussed it, we I shall really discuss the whole mode of management of the Empire and each of us will have a different opinion as to how economies are to be effected. I agree largely with the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I believe that there is a great deal of unnecessary waste in military expenditure. I do not know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have to answer, because he is the one person in the Government least guilty for this unnecessary expenditure. I should like to ask him, however, how many Armies we have got fighting in the world at the present time? I am not speaking of Armies of Occupation but of Armies which are on active service, and in which casualties may, unfortunately, be taking place. I do not believe that the public has the least idea how many wars this Government is carrying on. While everyone, of course, has the warmest sympathy with our gallant troops abroad, I believe that the public is not in favour of military adventures in any quarter of the world. That is my opinion and the opinion of my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Baronet (Sir B. Stanier) wants to see the bread subsidy abolished. The hon. Gentleman who moved (Mr. Grant) wants to see the unemployment grant abolished. Another hon. Gentleman wants to see the money withheld from the provision of houses. I think that to abolish the bread subsidy would be like leaving the motor cars in Kempton Park out in the rain. It would be to destroy the most useful part of the national machinery. We have our idea as to how the bread subsidy could be reduced, but it carries us into another controversy. It is really futile for us to attempt to put forward all our opposing views about
policy, because you could frame the policy of this country in two or three different ways each of which would mean more expenditure in one direction and less in another direction. I should like to deal purely with the question of administration, which is really a question of efficient business management. I make no apology for attempting to deal with it from the point of view of the man in the street, the man who is not very well informed, and is not very familiar with the excuses or finely-spun arguments by which it is attempted to justify that which he regards as gross extravagance, but who follows what appears in the newspapers. It is not an unreasonable view to take, because the Resolution refers to the financial stability of the country, and that depends a great deal upon what the man in the street thinks, the man who has to put I is hand into his pocket to subscribe to the Chancellor's Budget.

Sir F. BANBURY: He must find something in his pocket.

Captain BENN: All I am saying is that the opinion of the man in the street is an opinion to which we should pay respect. What does he think of the present state of affairs? He is, of course, well aware that the country is passing through a transitional state, and he does not expect a Budget that is no greater than a Budget in peace time. He knows that we are passing from war to peace and he expects, therefore, the Budget this year to be a good deal larger than the Budget of a normal year. He is encouraged, however, by the statements made by the Government. He hears that the Shipping Ministry is going, that the Food Ministry is being wound up, that the Ministry of Reconstruction is going, and that the Ministry of National Service has probably already ceased to exist. He is anxious about demobilisation, primarily because he knows that there are lots of men being retained in the Army and doing menial jobs who are wanted to start new industries at home. That is the main reason that he takes an interest in the demobilisation question. There is the financial aspect of it. He knows that every man gets so much per day. He is encouraged, however, when the Secretary of State for War comes down and says that 3,000,000 men have been demobilised. He thinks: "Here we are. At last, we are coming to a time of reduced expenditure." Then he examines the Estimates of the year, and he finds that
whereas during the War we were spending £6,000,000 a day, now, in a time of transition to peace, we are still spending over £4,000,000 per day. He cannot understand how it is, when the War is over and the Germans are defeated, that we cannot get down to something less than two-thirds of the expenditure during the War. On the top of all this he gets the Reports of the Committee on National Expenditure, and of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He reads some of the picturesque stories that appear in those perfectly serious official documents. He reads of the Ministry of Munitions hiring motor lorries at so much per week, and at the same time letting out motor lorries to contractors at a smaller figure. He reads of a factory to make rifles, or some weapon of war, put up at a total capital expenditure, advanced by the Treasury, of £135,000. The thing is a failure and the transaction is compromised by granting the factory to the proprietors at a figure of £37,000. Then he reads that a few months later the factory is taken back again by the Ministry of Munitions at a valuation of £50,000, although the right hon. Gentleman's Department protested throughout, as indeed it should, against the whole transaction. Then he reads of the case of Army officers travelling.

Captain B. STANIER: And men.

Captain BENN: And men. I do not wish to discriminate between the two. There is a great deal too much travelling on duty. A great many people are sent hither and thither because it costs them nothing. To-day an officer in uniform can travel in a railway train for half the pre-war cost of travelling. I should be sorry to say anything unfriendly to officers, but in the present state of national financial danger I do not see why they should be allowed on pleasure to go hither And thither at, not half the increased fare, but half the pre-war fare, especially when they have the luxuries and comfort provided by the right hon. Gentleman's railway company. There was the interesting—I might say the classic case of the sentries provided by the Royal Defence Corps at a total cost of £850 each. People may say: "What is the good of raking up all this wasteful and loose administration during the War?" I know that it is not much comfort to the man who has had to pay and who is hard up to tell him that the money is irrecoverable and that he had better say no more about it, but he asks, "Where are
these people who were responsible for this waste of expenditure?" and he finds that they are still there, cheerfully preparing other schemes for wasteful expenditure in future. Therefore, that which has happened in the past is germane and relevant to a discussion as to the future. You thus get in the mind of the average observer a state of suspicious apprehension. He is prepared almost feverishly to watch for these examples of a useless waste of money. There is plenty of material. We hear of thousands of motor cars sunk deep in the mud and being dragged out by cranes. The man-in-the-street hears that various Departments are being demobilised, but he finds that we have a Vote for Public Buildings amounting to £7,000,000 against £3,000,000 last year. During the War the average person had more than his fair share of official forms to fill up, yet in the first year of Peace expenditure the Stationery Office Vote is put at £5,000,000, as against £1,500,000 in the last year of the War.

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): The hon. Gentleman should remember that much of the expenditure in war-time appeared only in the Vote of Credit.

Captain BENN: Of course, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is familiar with these details, but the White Paper recently issued shows a very large increase of expenditure for the ensuing year.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me for again intervening. But both my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and I have done our best to make the House and the country understand the meaning of these figures. During the War we financed all expenditure arising out of the War out of Votes of Credit. This year, for the first time since the War, we have given up Votes of Credit and put the expenditure in the Estimates. Yet the hon. and gallant Member compares the Estimates for this year with the Estimates for last year, omitting entirely the fact that there were then Votes of Credit. That is an entirely misleading and mischievous comparison, and I beg my hon. and gallant Friend, after the fallacy has been explained so often, not to give further publicity to what is really a mischievous misrepresentation.

Captain BENN: Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I have
had no time to search further, but if he will give me an assurance that the expenditure for the Stationery Office for the following year is not in excess of the expenditure for the past year, I will not press the argument. I accept his statement that there is no increase in the printing and stationery Vote for the ensuing year. But even though the right hon. Gentleman proves to be right. I must point out that there is a general tendency—an unrestricted tendency—to multiply expenditure in every direction. Take the case of political offices, a most important thing which very nearly concerns this House. Take the case of the Ministry of Health Bill, with which everyone sympathises and wishes to see passed into law. It has been accepted by the Government that the work of the Department can be done with one Secretary, and yet it was left to the economical determination of another place to enforce that. Now the Bill is going to be passed into law it is to be worked with one Secretary, whereas originally there was an unnecessary expenditure proposed for a second Secretary. Take the case of the Estimates laid before Parliament—the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong. We are told that the National Service Ministry and the Reconstruction Ministry are about to be wound up, but, as I read the Estimates for the ensuing year, the salaries of the Presidents of those two Departments are provided for the whole year. What is going to happen to that money which we are asked to vote, although the offices will shortly cease?
It is very difficult indeed, especially when coming fresh from a long absence, to follow all these complicated financial arrangements, but it certainly does not look as if there is any anxious determination to cut down expenditure in every direction. The salary of the Lord President of the Council has been increased by £3,000 a year. No doubt it is richly deserved, but it does not restore public confidence to see expenditure being increased without any real justification, in view of the urgent straits in which we find ourselves to-day. There is the question of the Lord Chancellor's residence. Nobody, of course, wants to make a small debating point, but it really is not dignified that when the country is hard up and must economise the Lord Chancellor, who is annually in receipt of £10,000 a year, should have to be told by a Committee of the
House of Commons that it is not dignified to grasp at a residence for which the last occupant paid something between £500 and £1,000 a year. The motor-car question has already been touched upon. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the one person who is struggling against it. But why should Ministers' Secretaries and people of that sort have all these motors? It is hardly worth while to trouble the House with figures, but according to a Return which I have there are fifty-nine motor cars in use at the Ministry of Reconstruction, which is going to be wound up. A motor car is a very expensive thing. You have to have a chauffeur and petrol, and to provide for the upkeep of the car. One Department, I think it is the Ministry of Labour, has the use of thirty-five motor cars. What possible justification can there be for this sort of expenditure, and what is the effect on the minds of the public.
You often hear people saying how ridiculous it is for a munition girl worker to buy a fur coat. But what can you expect her to do when she learns that the Lord Chancellor is quarrelling over his residence, that the Lord President of the Council is getting £3,000 a year more, and that a large number of motor cars are being used by the unemployed at Whitehall? The right hon. Gentleman told us it was very desirable for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if possible, to get the reluctant assent of the public to the taxes. But how can he expect to get that while these flagrant things are going on in public expenditure. Last week in Scotland a very respectable woman came to me. She had for the first time in her life been called upon to attend a Court because she could not pay her rent. The reason she could not pay was that she could not get her son demobilised from the Army. He was being kept there as an officer's servant, and she had found it impossible, with the allowances of which she was in receipt, to make both ends meet. But what must she think when she reads in the papers that £850 a year is the cost of maintaining one immobile sentry outside a perfectly useless office? I have before me the case of an old age pensioner who received 12s. 6d. a week in respect of the death of her son, and, because she got that additional grant, her old age pension was cut down. That, of course, was according to law. But what must be the impression created upon the minds of people like that when they read that the Govern-
ment entertainment Grant for the ensuing year is to be £200,000 instead of £25,000, as last year?
What control is there over the expenditure of this country? In the old days there used to be a Cabinet. I think I am right in saying that the Estimates used to come before the Cabinet and be passed. Who passes the Estimates now? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain. They surely cannot be passed by the War Cabinet in Paris. What control is there, and who passes the drafts of these Estimates before they are submitted to the House? That is a point very germane to the speech made by the Mover. This House ought to show a stern example of economy to the country. That is one reason why I, speaking for myself, am greatly opposed to the extension of any privileges whatever to Members of this House. I am in favour of the payment of Members of Parliament, because I believe this House ought to be open to talent and to whoever the constituencies wish to send here, to the man who has nothing as much as to the man who is rich. That is a sound principle of democracy. But I do not think that polities should become, or appear to become, a lucrative profession. In the old days Ministers served, and were glad to serve, without any salary at all. There were always Ministers who served in an honorary capacity. Why cannot we get back to something of that kind? Why should it be necessary, in order to maintain the dignity of the Government, to apply all these perquisites and increases of salary to the members of the Government, or anybody else? The House ought to regard most jealously all expenditure to or on behalf of members of its own body. It would add greatly to the moral weight as well as to the dignity of this Government if the Ministry lived in dignified poverty. There has been a great War. Many people have sacrificed everything—not only money, but much more. It is not very creditable to be rich today. Why should not the Government be a Government of poor men, who exercise a stern economy on behalf of the nation, and for their own services are satisfied with the reward of public esteem?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad that the House should on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend, devote an evening to the consideration of public expenditure and of the condition and prospects of the national balance-sheet. I confess
I am anxious that no word that I say tonight should seem to anybody to indicate any underestimate on my part of the need for economy, for the severe prevention of waste and for the punishment of culpable waste, if such exists. With the speeches of my hon. and gallant Friend who opened the Debate and my right hon. Friend who seconded the Motion, I have no possible cause of complaint, unless it be that, while drawing attention to the large expenditure—some of it of a very unsatisfactory kind—and to the consequences which will follow if you cannot reduce it, they had no very practical suggestions to make for immediate remedy. But I confess I do rather deprecate the character of some of the observations made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. He trotted out again with great vehemence and with some violence a well-worn them It is, of course, the case that during the War there was unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. But I beg the House, in judging those who made mistakes in very difficult circumstances, to remember the attitude of the House itself at that time. It was not very easy to say exactly what would be required. The pressure then throughout the House and throughout the country, and rightly in both, was that the Army should be provided with what was required. The pursuit of inquiries and precautions which ought to precede and accompany expenditure in peace time, means in war again and again that what you save in money you spend in blood. I remember when I first joined the Coalition Government of Mr. Asquith that again and again the present Prime Minister as Minister of Munitions was ordering military supplies in excess of those demanded by the military authorities. I and some others thought at times that he was ordering too much. I cannot remember a single instance in which before those supplies were ready the military authorities had not increased their demand even beyond what he had ordered.
In these circumstances and amidst these difficulties, it is not surprising that mistakes were made. It is not surprising that here and there a factory was put up which had better not have been put up. It is not surprising that the War, coming suddenly to an end at a time when all of us were contemplating that we should have to wage it for another year, you should find works unfinished on your hands which are now in the nature of a white elephant but which might have been of vast import
to the successful conduct of the War. These things should be borne in mind when you are criticising the past. Let me add one further word of caution. I have a very high regard and respect for the office of Comptroller and Auditor-General and for the Gentleman who fills that office now. But the House must not take every statement which appears in his Reports as submitted to the Public Accounts Committee as proven, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be the first person to tell you so. He finds a primâ facie case. I have known many instances—no doubt the Comptroller and Auditor-General could give you more—where, on examination by the Public Accounts Committee, the transaction has worn quite a different aspect from that as it first appeared in the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Report. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite treated big questions and little questions as if they were of equal importance. I think that sometimes, unlike others who have spoken, he was less concerned with economy than with a certain amount of party or personal feeling. The hon. and gallant Gentleman thought it becoming and proper to speak of its having required a vote of this House to teach the Lord Chancellor that he was not to be extravagantly housed at the public expense. Was that a fair statement, in view of the facts known to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, which are already public property? The Lord Chancellor did not want to occupy that house. He did not ask for it. It was a decision of the House of Lords that the Lord Chancellor should have that residence, and it was a decision of the House of Lords Committee that he should not pay rent for it. As a matter of fact, the Lord Chancellor never wished to occupy it. It would have involved him in increased expense. But since a Committee of this House, in a virtuous outburst of economy, has at last found a way to save public money by refusing to put a second bath in a house containing thirty rooms, the Lord Chancellor will remain more comfortably housed in his own house. It may be wrong to provide public residences. It is not wrong to make them decent, and it is not in any case a proper subject for attack against my right hon. Friend that the Office of Works, in pursuance of its ordinary duty, should have sought to make the House reasonably
habitable when the House of Lords had requested that the holder of that office should occupy it.
10.0 P.M.
I am sorry to have had to devote even that amount of time to a petty detail of that kind. We are really discussing much bigger questions. I am not here to palliate or to excuse any form of waste. I speak not for myself only. I speak for the Government, for my colleagues as well as for myself. We have none of us any excuse to make for continued waste. We are all bent on producing in our own Departments and through the public service the economies which are compatible with the due discharge of the public service. But I beg the House to remember the problems with which we are confronted. The transition from peace to war produced a crop of new problems which we only grappled with by degrees. The transition from war to peace produces as many new problems. It produces them the moment you begin the transition and before peace is signed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Benn) and others say, "Why do you not demobilise your pivotal men?" Does he suggest that we should go through the Army now, picking out pivotal men, to the exclusion of others, for demobilisation? We went as far in that direction as was compatible with discipline and contentment in the Army, and I speak what is known to everyone when I say that the picking out of individuals, whether as pivotal men or for whatever other reason, caused grave discontent in the Army, because in its practical operation to the men who were left serving it was indistinguishable from favouritism. To demobilise men as rapidly as possible is the desire of us all, and of no one more than the Government. But you cannot demobilise on the principle which the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests without consequences which, if he were in a responsible position, he would not face. Is this demand for the demobilisation of the military, naval, and air forces a natural one? That demobilisation has already been carried very far, and the preliminaries of peace are not yet signed. We do not know what confronts us. A great part of the world is still restless. Many parts of it are still fighting. The reactions of war are not over and you only proceed gradually, and even if peace were signed there still remains the overlap of war. The very demobilisation of the men involves you in increasing expense, for they are entitled to their bounties on
demobilisation. The stoppage of contracts in course of execution for military supplies, which had to be provided in ever increasing quantities up to the last moment of the War, involves you in expenditure, and whichever way you turn you cannot suddenly cease all expenditure because fighting on the Western Front has ceased.
But I think my hon. Friends who moved and seconded the Motion showed a better appreciation of the real problem which is under discussion than the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is not waste that is the danger. Waste is excused by nobody, and will be defended by nobody where it is found and proved. That is not the danger. The danger to which the Motion calls attention is that
the present rate of public expenditure causes anxiety in regard to the financial stability of the country and that all possible means for the reduction of expenditure should receive the immediate attention of the Government.
I have no fault to find with that Resolution. The position gives cause for grave attention and constant care. It might easily become one in which it would give cause for the gravest anxiety, but that will not be because of wasteful expenditure in the sense in which the word is ordinarily employed. I repeat what my right hon. Friend (Sir F. Banbury) said with the authority which attaches to a warning of this kind from a person who holds the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and with a sense of responsibility which is present to him at every hour of his day's work. The real danger is that the House and the country do not realise, in their normal daily action, that we have not the means to carry out all the large programme of amelioration and improvement which it is sought to carry out at once. We may do it by degrees, but at present it is not sufficient, it will not be sufficient for the House of Commons to vote down waste, to put a stop to what is habitually called extravagance, to the payment of unduly high salaries, to the use of motor cars where they arc not really required, to the employment of an unnecessarily large staff—that alone would not be sufficient unless we realise that our cloth is limited and we must cut our coat according to our cloth. I wish the House would realise that. Look at the Question Paper to-day. My hon. Friend who had the curiosity to go through it
counted sixteen questions, all asking for more expenditure and some of those questions were put by an hon. Member who-has taken part in this Debate. That is typical of any day. There is not a subject which comes up, there is not an economy which the Department has made for itself, or which the Treasury has enforced upon it, which does not become the subject of questions and criticism in this House and of complaint that the money which we have saved is not being spent. It has to be realised that in many instances the case made out for expenditure, taken by itself, is good. The object is a good one. The people for whose benefit the expenditure is intended are deserving. There is nothing to be said against it on its merits, it that was the only thing we had to consider and the Exchequer was full to overflowing. But what is the use of my hon. Friends asking for the reduction of taxation when on every hand we arc being pressed not to spend less but to spend more; when we are called upon to carry out these immense schemes and at the same time to revise every tax that we made, to extend every concession that we accord to a larger class of people, and to antedate to some past time every allowance which is now created in present circumstances.
I do not rise to defend waste. I should be unworthy of my position if I did. My colleagues will not defend waste. They and 1 are working together to secure pure economy, and to secure efficiency, but unless the House will put some check on the demands made on the public purse, our efforts will not be sufficient to avert the danger to which my hon. Friend's Motion calls attention. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Motion said that he thought the Ministers at the head of Departments did not know the details of the work. That is quite true. Take the Secretary of State for War, or take the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot know of the detailed work of my Department and the Secretary of State for War cannot know all the detailed work in his Department. If he could, and if he had time for it, you would not get a Minister of the authority and position of the Secretary of the State for War. He has bigger problems to deal with, but he can inspire his officers with the spirit which inspires him. He can impress upon them, as I know he is seeking to impress upon them, the need for economy, and he can ask them to work out with him the means by which it is enforced. The difficulties of the Depart-
ments I do not overrate. No man likes having economy forced upon him. Each Minister is anxious to spend more money in proportion as he is keen about the service of which he is the head, be it military or civil. Each one naturally thinks of the circumstances and the needs of his own department, but, working together, we do try to measure the total burden and keep it to something which is reasonable and possible for the country to bear. My difficulties are not with my colleagues, and their difficulties are not with me. They come to me again and again and say, "Did you listen to last night's Debate in the House of Commons?" or, "If you had been present yesterday afternoon you would have seen that the matter raised is one which it is impossible for the Government to resist." There is constant pressure on every occasion—except on the Vote for the Chancellor of the Exchequer—upon the Government and upon Ministers to spend a thousand pounds with an occasional expression of the hope that they will save £5. The House must co-operate. It must view the problem as a whole. It must cease to look at it departmentally or sectionally, considering each policy by itself and never considering where it is tending to as a whole.
We have gone through this tremendous struggle which has proved the strength of our financial position as well as our national strength in other ways. We have been the financial backbone of the. Allies. We carried the great burden, unevenly I might almost say, up to the time when America came into the War. We did not and could not relax our efforts even when America came in, and in spite of this gigantic bur-don and in spite of the sacrifices we have made we arc in a stronger position than any other combatant excepting the United States, which entered so much later into the War, after having reaped the immense advantage of its earlier neutrality. I speak of what I know when I say that the strength of our position, despite the sacrifices we have made and the readiness of which they "were borne, has excited admiration, even wonder, among our Allies, and perhaps among our enemies. In virtue of that we are in a better position than any other belligerent to meet the future as it now confronts us, and we can meet it with success on condition that we realise that the immense expenditure on the War is not a reason for spending more
but is a reason for spending as little as is compatible with social order and good government, and on condition that on each occasion when expenditure comes before us we ask, not whether we like this, not whether it is a particular thing to be done if we were prosperous and the Exchequer overflowing, but is it a thing so urgently necessary that even in a situation as difficult as at present, and whilst we arc as heavily burdened as we are we must, nevertheless spend money upon it. If we deal with expenditure in that spirit, the danger which my hon. Friends fear will pass away, our stability will be increased, our debt will be gradually reduced, cur trade will be encouraged, and our prosperity will return. But these results can only be obtained if throughout the whole field we exercise wise economy and put away the spendthrift habits which necessarily overtake us in time of war.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Government is increasing for the ensuing year the hospitality fund from £20,000 to £200,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not all the details of the Vote. I am told, however, that my hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in supposing that the Vote last year was £20,000. He has overlooked the Supplemental Estimate of £60,000 which raised the sum to £80,000 in all. The sum for the present year will not be expended unless it is necessary.

Captain BENN: It will not be surrendered. It says so in the Estimates.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It will not be spent unless it is necessary. If it is not expended this year, so much less will be required to be voted next year. I cannot give my hon. Friend the detail of the expenditure. Nobody can give him the details of this particular Vote until the expenditure has been incurred, but I. understand that the additional provision was made for this year in view of the possibilities of peace and of visitors who may have to be entertained. If it is not necessary for that purpose I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will not be spent, I can give him the further assurance that that fund is as jealously guarded and is subject to as strict Regulations as to the purpose for which it can be expended now as at the time when he was a member of the Government which initiated it.

Mr. WILSON-FOX: Those who have listened to this Debate will, I am sure, feel grateful to the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, because it has drawn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the extremely valuable speech to which we have just listened. My excuse for rising after him is that he asked the House for practical suggestions. I felt great sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. T. Davies), because he reproduced some of the feelings which I had myself when I entered this House some years ago. But I was fortunate shortly after I entered the House to become associated with the movement which resulted in the constitution of the Select Committee on national expenditure in the last Parliament, which, on the admission of the Government, and under the very able and experienced Chairmanship of Mr. Herbert Samuel, was recognised as doing very valuable work. I agree entirely with what has been expressed so much better than I can express it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the standards which we were accustomed to apply to expenditure in peace time, and which certainly ought to be applied, were not applicable in time of war, because there were so many questions of policy involved, and policy in which the determining factor was not, could not, and ought not, to have been financial considerations. I served under my right hon. Friend (Mr. Samuel) on the Sub-committee that dealt with the War Office, and at every turn we were being confronted, when we put questions probing into the reasons why certain expenditure had been incurred, with the answer, "We have got to do this, and for this purpose money is no object."
During the War we nearly always had to accept the view that things had got to be done. But now that that period is practically over, the test that should be applied to all national expenditure is, "Are we getting value for our money?'' And I was delighted to hear the assurance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, speaking not only for himself, but for the Government as a whole, the Government collectively and individually abhorred waste, and I think that we are quite convinced that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will do his utmost to make that proper view prevail. The opinion that the Select Committee on National Expenditure in the last Parliament arrived at was, that there is no royal road in enforcing economy on Government Departments, and what one has to do is to
try to create an atmosphere of economy, which shall permeate all Government Departments, which can be maintained only by the personal exertions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and members of the Cabinet, and which the House of Commons ought to back and can do a very great deal also to maintain. I have only one quarrel with the Government over its reception of the Reports of the Select Committee, on National Expenditure in the last Parliament. While the Government accepted certainly a very high proportion of the suggestions made by that Committee—and the number of suggestions which they accepted alone proved the value of its work—they rejected, or, at any rate, have not accepted up to the present what was, from the House of Commons point of view, far and away the most practical and useful suggestion that was made in the whole of those Reports. That is, that an attempt should be made to institute again a Committee on Estimates in a somewhat new form, such as in earlier years was set up and presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). That suggestion has not been, I think, absolutely rejected by the Government. We were told that such Estimates Committees could not be set up during the present financial year, but that the suggestion might be further considered next year.
I hope the House will make it perfectly clear that it expects action of that kind to be taken as soon as possible. The reason why such action is absolutely necessary is this: that when Estimates are submitted to this House in Committee it is, as every business man must recognise, impossible for Members to make a business inquiry into the details. Every business man knows that when you want to ask questions as to why certain items are appearing in Estimates you must have the people before you who compile the Estimates and are responsible for the figures; that you must probe into it, ask questions and take evidence in a more or less informal way. That cannot possibly be done in this House. It cannot uesfully be done even by such Standing Committees as those which this year have been examining the Estimates of the year. One of the most important recommendations of the Select Committee was that an officer in this House comparable with the officer who performs the responsible duties of Comptroller and Auditor-General,
should prepare the way for the Committee on Estimates, go into the questions, and, if I may put it colloquially, put up the game for the Committee. We found in our examinations of Departmental accounts that it was absolutely necessary to have associated with the special Sub-committee dealing with a particular Department a finance officer of that Department, so that he might indicate the directions in which we might usefully make inquiries. That system worked extremely well, and we were confident that if a Committee of this kind became a permanent feature of our organisation we should require an officer of our own, provided with a staff, that he should have the entry into every Department, see the officials and all their papers, and suggest to the Estimates Committee the directions in which they might usefully prosecute inquiries. It was not intended by the Select Committee that these Estimates Committees should replace the examination of the Estimates formally by this House, but that when this House came to examine by a process of Debate the Estimates, then, at any rate, they should have before them Reports from the Estimates Committee in which there would be pointed out to the House the directions in which the Estimates could be criticised, and, armed with that information, the Debates in this House might be more fruitful of results than they have been in the past. That is a practical suggestion which has been made by a very strong Committee of this House. As a very junior Member of it, I can express that opinion without egotism. It was an unusually strong Committee, and it was acknowledged by the Government to have been a good Committee. Yet they have not acted upon its most important suggestion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked for a practical suggestion. Mine is that when this House appoints a responsible and expert body of its Members to go into a financial matter of this character, then let this House back its own Committee and see it through. Then there will be some chance that it will increase its power of effective control over the finance of the country. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Cirencester—that these matters have been very carefully inquired into, that suggestions have been made, and that if these suggestions are carried out he and others will feel more confidence, in their capacity to deal usefully with the national finance. I do not wish to labour
the point further, but I am, and always have been, exceedingly keen that greater attention should be given in this House to questions of economy, because finance must always be at the root of all useful reform and of all successful administration. Too much attention cannot be given to it by those whose inclination and training give them a special aptitude and knowledge to deal with these matters.

Mr. C. WHITE: Like the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. T. Davies), I am a somewhat unsophisticated Member of this House. I do not think I should have spoken this evening were it not for the reference to the Lord Chancellor's residence. I happen to be the Member who proposed that a sum of £3,800, and a further £1,000 for decorating the house, should be deleted from the Estimates, and I did so on the direct advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I went from this House asked by him to do all we could to practice economy in all Government Departments. I at once put that into effect upstairs by moving that this sum should be deleted from the Estimates. I have no regrets. It is not so much the sum but the principle underlying it. I want to ask, were we justified after having a sermon from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in going straight upstairs and in giving the Noble Lord in another place another £1,000 a year, for that is what it amounts to, with his salary of £10,000 per year, in addition to spending £1,000 on the residence and decorating it according to his instructions? I know it is said he did not want it, and I heard the Chancellor say just now that it would be an additional expense to him. I fail to see it. A grateful country finds him a house to live in and decorates it and puts in a bath, at a cost of £3,800, and he lets his own house, and then I am told that is putting him to some additional expense. I wish somebody would put me to some additional expense of that sort. There is another matter connected with these Estimates. It came out that not half of the money was already spent. I know certain routine work has to be done, but I object to having Estimates brought before us for new work when that work is already done, and I am going to be no registering machine on any Committee. I will read a letter I have received from an officer which will perhaps convey to the right
hon. Gentleman somewhat of the feeling of the man in the street about this. He says:
Will you permit me to offer you ray most grateful thanks for your stout and successful effort against profligate waste of public money by the present Government. I refer particularly to your successful action yesterday against the proposed expenditure on the Lord Chancellor's house. It makes me see red to think I am charged on my wound pension—
That was before the Budget—
I could spare it if the money were honestly needed, but not to see money squandered in this way. I was crippled for life in November, 1914, and I want a lift in the house far more than a young man like Lord Birkenhead.
That is the feeling existing in the country, but the right hon. Gentleman's Friend sitting next to him would tell him at once that that is not the only item I proposed upstairs should be deleted from the Estimates, and which I gave grounds for doing. I am not peculiar in doing so. I acted on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman himself. This is not a party matter. I was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman accuse my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn) of having some party motive in bringing this forward. This was supported upstairs by Unionists, Liberals, and Labour men, who were all agreed that the principle underlying this was wrong and that the expenditure was unnecessary. We have been asked whether we are getting value for money. I have not had a very long career in Government service, but I have served in throe Government Departments during the War—a short time at the Ministry of National Service, under the War Office, and under the Ministry of Food; and I think there is a good deal of expenditure that is not warranted. We have heard a great deal to-day about devolution. We have got the worst form of devolution that any country has got—devolution by the Government to Government Departments. There is no Government by Parliament in this country. It is government by permanent officials and Government Departments. I have spoken in the old days in ray simplicity about Government by the people, of the people, for the people, but I had not been in Parliament long before I found that there is no Government by the people in this Parliament. It is Government by bureaucracy and by Government Departments. Strong a believer as I was in nationalisation before the War, that belief has somewhat
wavered after my experience of Government Departments lately. There is no control by the elected representatives of the people who sit in this House. I have just heard the right hon. Gentleman ask for the co-operation of Parliament, but all I say to him is this: "Give us a chance to do it Give us an opportunity to have some voice in the matter, and we shall be only too glad to help you to reduce the expenditure." If complaint is made of expenditure in the Committee upstairs about work being done, they say: "The Treasury have sanctioned it." I do not quite understand who the Treasury are. I heard a question put the other day to the newly appointed President of the Board of Trade respecting imports and exports, and he told us that the restrictions had been taken off certain articles, but it took too long to tell us what restrictions. Does Parliament know anything about that before it is done by the Department? Has Parliament any voice in it at all? I would like to refer the President of the Board of Trade to a letter I have received from a big tradesman in a town in the North Midlands. He says:
Over twelve months ago we wanted some castings for a Wolseley commercial car. We have not been able to get same owing to Government officials refusing permission to supply. On making a purpose journey recently to the Wolseley works to get those parts we saw a number of back axles complete, and as the castings required were for back axles we asked if we could have a back axle, but no, the Government would not give them permission to Bell, though they will not take them themselves, and the parts still lie there, dozens of them, and people like ourselves have their businesses suspended from want of same
Are we getting value for our money when we are having things held up in this manner by a Department of which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Geddes) is the head? I gave an instance in this House not long ago. A manufacturer had a large order for Sweden. He went to the Hoard of Trade and tried to get a licence, and sent a telegram costing 10s. 11d., but could get no answer. He got a telegram at night to say the order had been given elsewhere owing to the delay. I want to know if we get value for our money. Take the Ministry of Agriculture. Are they earning their money? I can take the hon. Gentleman to the county division I represent. Land is being sold every day to speculators, and tenant farmers who want to buy their little farms are being blackmailed. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture said he is quite
aware of it. Then why does he not put a stop to it? It has been going on for the last six or eight months. Agriculture is going to suffer. I am told it is a dying industry; yet landowners put up the rents and sell the land on the basis of the high rents. Then I am told that Government Departments are doing their duty. Centralisation—and that is what we are having—has entirely broken down. If it is profitable for land speculators to buy land in this manner it is time for the Government to consider the nationalisation of land apart from industry altogether—I am not speaking about that.
I have worked in the Ministry of Food. I was Food Distribution Officer. My chief job was in breaking regulations or ignoring them to make a success of my office. I heard a discussion here the other day as to whether it was necessary to continue the Ministry of Food. I am here to say something about it. Although I was asked to give up my position on 1st December last, on the ground that I was becoming a candidate for Parliament, I am still getting every day the same Regulations, the same Orders, and all that sort of thing, just as though I was distribution officer for that part of the county of Derby. I want to know whether we are getting value for our money. I heard the Minister of Food say, like the loyal head of a Department towards his permanent officials, that the Ministry must have credit for rationing in this country. He was never so wrong in his life. It was entirely due to devolution that rationing was a success in this country. I stood in a queue on four winter mornings, from four to eight, to find out the cause of queues. We had our rationing scheme in operation in the town in which I was a fortnight before the Government Department sanctioned it at all. We borrowed £1,000 to buy some rationed articles of food to make it a success. And then I am told that a Government Department must take the credit! It is because the Government Departments are governing that we are in the position we are in today over the gross and reckless expenditure we see all about us. The chief qualifications of men in many of these offices—I am not saying anything about the Minister of Food—is that they know nothing at all about their job. There is absolutely no Parliamentary control over the multiplicity of offices and staffs, and little Government control over these offices and staffs. I heard the other day, in a
Committee on which I sit, that an expert Committee is to be set up to inquire how far the hotels are still needed, and how far the staffs are still needed. I asked, "Who are on the Committee?" I was told that they did not know at all who were on these expert Committees. There is no Member of Parliament or representative of the people on. I have handed in a question to-night to ask whether the Prime Minister will consider setting up a Committee consisting of Members of this House to inquire into these large staffs and the Government hotels. When you ask a question of this sort you are in effect told by the Governmental Front Bench to mind your own business, that it is not customary, as was said the other day, to give names. It is the chief object—and I am saying this with some knowledge of the facts—in life of these Government officials and staffs to keep their jobs and to employ as many as they can under them.
Economy! When I am told that Government Departments are practising economy I say that I want to see some evidence of it. I see none except lip-service coming from that bench opposite. In my experience it is never thought of. The welfare of the country is never thought of, nor the prosperity. There is no breadth of vision whatever. It is all considered from the inside of the Government offices, but the economy seldom materialises. I have worked under the War Office. I worked under the right hon. Gentleman opposite for a short time, not very long ago when he took over the Ministry of National Service. I was not a military man, and therefore I lost my job. The men who had made the thing a success, to some extent, had to give way to officers. The failure of National Service before the right hon. Gentleman took it over was due largely to the jealousy of another Government Department, the Ministry of Labour. I can prove it. When I was appointed an officer under the National Service scheme I called a meeting at Chesterfield to explain the whole object of national service, and at my own expense. What happened? I had criticised the Minister of Labour at some of the tribunals.
The late Director of National Service said: "You must cancel that meeting." I got a telegram to that effect, and that I had to appear before my superiors, and bring all documents. I wired back: "You
can have my resignation. I shall hold the meeting unless law and force prevents me" I held it. They sent a man from London to report all I said. I had desired to make the thing a success in my own county, where I have lived for thirty-five years. Then I had to appear before the officer—a factory inspector who had been made chief officer at a salary of £l,000 a year, and who knew nothing at all about the job. He said: "When you make an after-dinner speech you should submit it to the head of your Department." I replied that it depended upon what sort of dinner you had had.
This is the kind of officialism going on throughout the country. People may think it has stopped since the War. That is not so. It is just as rampant to-day as ever. The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about recruiting, demobilisation, and substitution. He knows as well as I know that before he came on the scene money had been literally thrown away. 1 am not certain that it is not being thrown away to-day. Look at the confusion we are in at the present moment. I know it was wartime. 1 asked my own substitution officer—the officer commanding at York—to allow me to interview an agricultural company at Darlington. He offered to parade the company before me for me to pick out my men. I said, ''I do not want the men paraded. I am going to examine all these men individually, and in their huts." I examined eighty-seven, and out of these only one man had ever been on the land, and that was when he was fourteen years old. I placed sixty of them in work that they had been used to, and I got sixty fit men for the Army in a week. They stopped me the week after. I was doing it too fast. It took them three weeks to substitute one man. This is the sort of work and management that you find in many public offices. These men are sent out to a farm one day and are sent back the next. I know that an accountant was sent out as a ploughman. Some of us have only in a subordinate capacity had some experience of what is going on in public offices at the present moment. I have heard a good deal about the failure of the Committee upstairs. The hon. Member for Stafford said last night that their only solemn triumph was depriving the Lord Chancellor of a bath, but we are not doing anything of the sort, because he can get a bath and so can I. I proposed many other
reductions. These old Parliamentary Members who have been used to proposing that the Minister's salary shall be reduced by £100 talk all day about it and then finish up by withdrawing it altogether. I proposed to reduce an estimate by £20,000 the other day, and putting up new buildings in the Royal parks. I said, "Why not spend this money upon houses for the working classes?" and the Committee adjourned to see if it could be done. They wanted the old custom of reducing the salary by £100 and I proposed a reduction of £20,000 and lost. It seems to me that that is the way to reduce Estimates if we have courage enough to do it. It was proposed the other day upstairs not to agree to the £3,000 increase for the Lord President of the Council. I was not there or 1 should have gone to a Division upon that question, and I should not have been hoodwinked by what was said. Is this the. time to increase the salary of the Lord President of the Council by £3,000? I really think that he will not accept it. I think that he will rather be insulted, being a member of a noble house, at being offered an increase of salary at a time like this.
In many of these cases the Estimates ought to be reduced, and it is due to the new Members that they are not reduced. This is because the old Members are somewhat chary about altering this old Parliamentary procedure. The hon. Member opposite is much younger than I am and has had much more experience, but may I suggest to the House that what we want is government by Parliament? We want Parliamentary control, and that has been lacking. If I care to introduce a little bit of party into this matter I might say how terribly easy it was last December to speak of that Utopia we are coming to, and that Elysium we are hoping for, but it does not seem to materialise quite as quickly as I expected. I came here expecting all these things to materialise, not by the magic wand of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but by hon. Members sticking to their pledges. We ask the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite bench, if he wants the co-operation of the House of Commons, to let us into his confidence, and go to these buildings that are now housing a lot of people who are doing very little for their country. I do not know how many girls they have in those offices, but it seems to me that the better looking they are the longer they are likely to retain their jobs. I
want the House of Commons to inquire into these matters, and until the House of Commons regains control over the expenditure we shall never be any better with regard to it.

Major MORRISON-BELL: I am sure the House has listened with the greatest pleasure to both the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, and also to the warnings given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I do not think the Debate has produced any very practical suggestions as yet. I am going to try to put before the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer what I think might be a practical step towards economy. Perhaps the greatest sinners in this matter of expenditure are the Members of the House of Commons themselves. The hon. Member who has just sat down has certainly brought some fairly strong cases against Government Departments, but I am not certain that you could not bring stronger cases against Members of this House. Until hon. Members themselves are really determined to carry out economies these Debates will be of very little value whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that on the Order Paper every day there are a certain number of questions entailing expenditure. To-day he tells us there were sixteen questions entailing expenditure. Would it not be possible to print in italics every question put by hon. Members entailing expenditure? It is a very simple suggestion, but in would at once, so to speak, pillory the questions which entailed expenditure. Let us assume that the expenditure of this country is quite high enough and should not be increased, because with all our commitments we cannot afford to spend more money at the present time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that. Therefore, let us assume the present expenditure is the datum level which must not be exceeded. Then, if you printed every question which involved expenditure in italics and they were tabulated once a month, you would by that form a pillory which could be very simply carried out and reduce the demands on the Chancellor of the Exchequer and thereby reduce expenditure. That seems fairly simple, and it is far more practicable than anything I have heard tonight. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will seriously consider it.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
suggest that the greatest economy was to be found in curtailing part of the programme of social reform which we outlined at the last General Election. That would be not merely cutting your coat according to your cloth, but it would also be penny wise and pound foolish. If you are going to curtail your programme of social reform, are you going to curtail your housing schemes? Are you going to-ask those who have been living in the slums of our large towns, suffering from heavy sickness and a high mortality rate, to continue to do so? If so, instead of finding your cost reduced, you will find it increased by incapacity for work and unemployment. That will be false economy. Are you going to curtail your expenditure on the Ministry of Health and those schemes for the care of mothers and the welfare of child life? The child life of our nation is a bigger asset to-day than it ever was. If we are going to struggle with our economic difficulties we shall require a more vigorous childhood and manhood than ever before. It would be false economy. Are you going to curtail your expenditure on education? Surely nothing could be more false than that. We have a world's competition to face, more strenuous than ever before, and the experience of recent years has taught us that we have spent far too little on our education and not too much.
I submit with all due respect it would be an entirely false sense of economy to curtail housing, or the Ministry of Health or Education. Let us rather look at home to the various illustrations we have had of gross extravagance in Government Departments. You cannot go into any Government Department to-day but you will find gross extravagance. But do not make an excuse, and instead of dealing with that curtail the programme of reconstruction held out at the last election, a programme which I am sure the majority of the House want to see carried out.

Resolved,
That the present rate of Public Expenditure causes anxiety in regard to the financial stability of the country, and that all possible means for the reduction of expenditure should receive the immediate attention of the Government.

Orders of the Day — TRADE DISPUTES (No. 2) BILL.

Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY COUNTY COUNCILS) BILL.— [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill was passed through the House of Lords, and its object that where the expenses of building bridges cannot be afforded there shall be power to acquire ferries.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a- Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — CORN PRODUCTION ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
This is a most remarkable Bill, but hon. Members who are so much occupied in the business connected with Standing Committees upstairs really have no time to go to the Vote Office and inquire into the character of these private measures. I think most Members are ignorant of the contents of this Bill. I make this Motion in order that the Bill may be studied before the House comes to a decision whether or not it shall receive a Second Reading.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Motion.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.